Tropical forests are now emitting more carbon than oxygen, alarming new study finds

[westwall]

Tropical forests are now emitting more carbon than oxygen, alarming new study finds
Worrying report reveals true impact of damage to forested areas

Around 20 per cent of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed in recent years AFP/Getty Images

So much of the Earth’s forest has been destroyed that the tropics now emit more carbon than they capture, scientists have found.

Tropical forests previously acted as a vital carbon “sink”, taking carbon from the atmosphere and turning it into oxygen, but the trend has reversed: they now emit almost twice as much carbon as they consume.

Scientists said ending deforestation and degradation in the tropics could reduce global carbon emissions by 8 per cent.

Tropical forests are now emitting more carbon than oxygen, alarming new study finds


Worrying to say the least...A major feed back.

This statement, by the lead author of the "study" tells me all I need to know about his honesty, or scientific knowledge. Either way, none of it is good as we KNOW that the oceans are the largest carbon sink holding 93% of ALL carbon on the planet. His statement is either willfully ignorant, or an outright lie. I am guessing lie because most of these sequestration schemes revolve around tree planting. Thus, the hysterical "we have a short time to save the planet" BS makes sense.

“Forests are the only carbon capture and storage 'technology' we have in our grasp that is safe, proven, inexpensive, immediately available at scale, and capable of providing beneficial ripple effects—from regulating rainfall patterns to providing livelihoods to indigenous communities."

Can you provide some kind of % contribution.

If this adding 50%, then it seems like it should get attention.

If this adding 0.005%, meh.

That's silly of you. Any increase at all is not good.

How do you know that? So far not a SINGLE scientist can claim to know anything about how the climate engine works. Not one. We have a bare minimum of an inkling how it works. The hyperbole from the climatologists is merely to generate funds for them and nothing else.

How do I know that any increase in the rate of adding Carbon to our carbon cycle is "not good"? Because of the observed effect of the recent increase.

There has been an observed increase in CO2 but there has been no observed increase in bad weather from that increase. In fact it has been the opposite. Computer models are not data. Never, ever forget that.

So what? It's warming and acidification of the oceans that worries scientists. Changing to weather = "bait and switch". Not biting.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

 

[westwall]

Can you provide some kind of % contribution.

If this adding 50%, then it seems like it should get attention.

If this adding 0.005%, meh.

That's silly of you. Any increase at all is not good.

Any increase at all is not good.

How do you know? Post your proof that the current levels are optimum.

Why? I didn't claim they are. And the current levels won't be the current levels in a year, as we are increasing the carbon content of our climate's carbon cycle regardless of the mechanism discussed in this thread.

Why? I didn't claim they are.

Well what is the optimum level?

Optimum level ....for what? And what is "optimum"? And why are you asking me? Go ask a scientist.

The claim is that NOW is the optimum temperature for the planet. The claim is NOW is the last chance to maintain this optimum temperature. Who claims this?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tropical forests are now emitting more carbon than oxygen, alarming new study finds
Worrying report reveals true impact of damage to forested areas

Around 20 per cent of the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed in recent years AFP/Getty Images
Tropical forests are now emitting more carbon than oxygen, alarming new study finds


Worrying to say the least...A major feed back.

This statement, by the lead author of the "study" tells me all I need to know about his honesty, or scientific knowledge. Either way, none of it is good as we KNOW that the oceans are the largest carbon sink holding 93% of ALL carbon on the planet. His statement is either willfully ignorant, or an outright lie. I am guessing lie because most of these sequestration schemes revolve around tree planting. Thus, the hysterical "we have a short time to save the planet" BS makes sense.

“Forests are the only carbon capture and storage 'technology' we have in our grasp that is safe, proven, inexpensive, immediately available at scale, and capable of providing beneficial ripple effects—from regulating rainfall patterns to providing livelihoods to indigenous communities."

That's silly of you. Any increase at all is not good.

How do you know that? So far not a SINGLE scientist can claim to know anything about how the climate engine works. Not one. We have a bare minimum of an inkling how it works. The hyperbole from the climatologists is merely to generate funds for them and nothing else.

How do I know that any increase in the rate of adding Carbon to our carbon cycle is "not good"? Because of the observed effect of the recent increase.

There has been an observed increase in CO2 but there has been no observed increase in bad weather from that increase. In fact it has been the opposite. Computer models are not data. Never, ever forget that.

So what? It's warming and acidification of the oceans that worries scientists. Changing to weather = "bait and switch". Not biting.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's silly of you. Any increase at all is not good.

Any increase at all is not good.

How do you know? Post your proof that the current levels are optimum.

Why? I didn't claim they are. And the current levels won't be the current levels in a year, as we are increasing the carbon content of our climate's carbon cycle regardless of the mechanism discussed in this thread.

Why? I didn't claim they are.

Well what is the optimum level?

Optimum level ....for what? And what is "optimum"? And why are you asking me? Go ask a scientist.

The claim is that NOW is the optimum temperature for the planet. The claim is NOW is the last chance to maintain this optimum temperature. Who claims this?

That's a lie. Nobody is making that claim. When you have to lie to have a point, you don't actually have a point.

 

[westwall]

This statement, by the lead author of the "study" tells me all I need to know about his honesty, or scientific knowledge. Either way, none of it is good as we KNOW that the oceans are the largest carbon sink holding 93% of ALL carbon on the planet. His statement is either willfully ignorant, or an outright lie. I am guessing lie because most of these sequestration schemes revolve around tree planting. Thus, the hysterical "we have a short time to save the planet" BS makes sense.

“Forests are the only carbon capture and storage 'technology' we have in our grasp that is safe, proven, inexpensive, immediately available at scale, and capable of providing beneficial ripple effects—from regulating rainfall patterns to providing livelihoods to indigenous communities."

How do you know that? So far not a SINGLE scientist can claim to know anything about how the climate engine works. Not one. We have a bare minimum of an inkling how it works. The hyperbole from the climatologists is merely to generate funds for them and nothing else.

How do I know that any increase in the rate of adding Carbon to our carbon cycle is "not good"? Because of the observed effect of the recent increase.

There has been an observed increase in CO2 but there has been no observed increase in bad weather from that increase. In fact it has been the opposite. Computer models are not data. Never, ever forget that.

So what? It's warming and acidification of the oceans that worries scientists. Changing to weather = "bait and switch". Not biting.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

 

[westwall]

Any increase at all is not good.

How do you know? Post your proof that the current levels are optimum.

Why? I didn't claim they are. And the current levels won't be the current levels in a year, as we are increasing the carbon content of our climate's carbon cycle regardless of the mechanism discussed in this thread.

Why? I didn't claim they are.

Well what is the optimum level?

Optimum level ....for what? And what is "optimum"? And why are you asking me? Go ask a scientist.

The claim is that NOW is the optimum temperature for the planet. The claim is NOW is the last chance to maintain this optimum temperature. Who claims this?

That's a lie. Nobody is making that claim. When you have to lie to have a point, you don't actually have a point.

Sure they are. That is the whole basis for the meme of "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW!"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do I know that any increase in the rate of adding Carbon to our carbon cycle is "not good"? Because of the observed effect of the recent increase.

There has been an observed increase in CO2 but there has been no observed increase in bad weather from that increase. In fact it has been the opposite. Computer models are not data. Never, ever forget that.

So what? It's warming and acidification of the oceans that worries scientists. Changing to weather = "bait and switch". Not biting.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

Another shameless lie...they, of course, are theories, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

"Local data sets"

If one does not understand what the word "global" means in "global climate", that person is simply not entitled to an opinion or any credibility in this topic.

 

[westwall]

There has been an observed increase in CO2 but there has been no observed increase in bad weather from that increase. In fact it has been the opposite. Computer models are not data. Never, ever forget that.

So what? It's warming and acidification of the oceans that worries scientists. Changing to weather = "bait and switch". Not biting.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

Another shameless lie...they, of course, are theories, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

"Local data sets"

If one does not understand what the word "global" means in "global climate", that person is simply not entitled to an opinion or any credibility in this topic.

A local data set is accurate. The climatologists have been caught twice falsifying data sets to support their lies. Both New Zealand and Australian climatologists have been forced to restore the data they were altering. Score two for the sceptics and ZERO for the climatologists on the lying front.




"The Bureau of Meteorology has ordered a full review of temperature recording equipment and procedures after the peak weather agency was caught tampering with cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations.

The bureau has admitted that a problem with recording very low temperatures is more widespread than Goulburn and the Snowy Mountains but rejected it has attempted to manipulate temperature records."

Nocookies

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what? It's warming and acidification of the oceans that worries scientists. Changing to weather = "bait and switch". Not biting.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

Another shameless lie...they, of course, are theories, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

"Local data sets"

If one does not understand what the word "global" means in "global climate", that person is simply not entitled to an opinion or any credibility in this topic.

A local data set is accurate. The climatologists have been caught twice falsifying data sets to support their lies. Both New Zealand and Australian climatologists have been forced to restore the data they were altering. Score two for the sceptics and ZERO for the climatologists on the lying front.

So what? It's warming and acidification of the oceans that worries scientists. Changing to weather = "bait and switch". Not biting.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

Another shameless lie...they, of course, are theories, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

"Local data sets"

If one does not understand what the word "global" means in "global climate", that person is simply not entitled to an opinion or any credibility in this topic.

A local data set is accurate. The climatologists have been caught twice falsifying data sets to support their lies. Both New Zealand and Australian climatologists have been forced to restore the data they were altering. Score two for the sceptics and ZERO for the climatologists on the lying front.

You have uttered more shameless lies in the last 15 minutes than any climatogist has in a lofetime of work.

But at least you have finally identified your particular version of "crazy": You accuse scientists of virtually all being liars or incompetent. Or both.

This makes you look utterly ridiculous and shows what shaky ground you stand on, and reaching this end is the only reason I have bothered to respond to you on this topic. I'm out....let me know the next time you plan to sit and debate actual scientists, or when we can expect the release of your 1000s of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

 

[westwall]

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

Another shameless lie...they, of course, are theories, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

"Local data sets"

If one does not understand what the word "global" means in "global climate", that person is simply not entitled to an opinion or any credibility in this topic.

A local data set is accurate. The climatologists have been caught twice falsifying data sets to support their lies. Both New Zealand and Australian climatologists have been forced to restore the data they were altering. Score two for the sceptics and ZERO for the climatologists on the lying front.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

Another shameless lie...they, of course, are theories, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

"Local data sets"

If one does not understand what the word "global" means in "global climate", that person is simply not entitled to an opinion or any credibility in this topic.

A local data set is accurate. The climatologists have been caught twice falsifying data sets to support their lies. Both New Zealand and Australian climatologists have been forced to restore the data they were altering. Score two for the sceptics and ZERO for the climatologists on the lying front.

You have uttered more shameless lies in the last 15 minutes than any climatogist has in a lofetime of work.

But at least you have finally identified your particular version of "crazy": You accuse scientists of virtually all being liars or incompetent. Or both.

This makes you look utterly ridiculous and shows what shaky ground you stand on, and reaching this end is the only reason I have bothered to respond to you on this topic. I'm out....let me know the next time you plan to sit and debate actual scientists, or when we can expect the release of your 1000s of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

And yet I have presented documented evidence to support what I stated and you have simply resorted to insults. The typical response for someone who has no facts to support them. Thank you for showing beyond doubt that you don't care about science, or factual data, that all you care about are meme's and lies.

In other words you are nothing more than the typical AGW supporter who relies on lies and insults to try and prove your non existent points.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you provide some kind of % contribution.

If this adding 50%, then it seems like it should get attention.

If this adding 0.005%, meh.

That's silly of you. Any increase at all is not good.

Any increase at all is not good.

How do you know? Post your proof that the current levels are optimum.

Why? I didn't claim they are. And the current levels won't be the current levels in a year, as we are increasing the carbon content of our climate's carbon cycle regardless of the mechanism discussed in this thread.

Why? I didn't claim they are.

Well what is the optimum level?

Optimum level ....for what? And what is "optimum"? And why are you asking me? Go ask a scientist.

Optimum level ....for what?

For humans. For life on Earth.

And what is "optimum"?

Most conducive to a favorable outcome; best.
Dictionary - Google Search

And why are you asking me?

Because you claimed that "Any increase at all is not good"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

Another shameless lie...they, of course, are theories, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

"Local data sets"

If one does not understand what the word "global" means in "global climate", that person is simply not entitled to an opinion or any credibility in this topic.

A local data set is accurate. The climatologists have been caught twice falsifying data sets to support their lies. Both New Zealand and Australian climatologists have been forced to restore the data they were altering. Score two for the sceptics and ZERO for the climatologists on the lying front.

It's only warming through the magic of computer data falsification. Acidification is a joke. We could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the ocean pH would drop from 8.1 to 8.0. Still very alkaline.

Those are lies. You are wrong. No, you are not presenting an actual challenge to acepted scientific theories by shitting on them. No, you have published no science, nor will you ever. No, I will not be litigating the validity of accepted theories with a blog educated denier. Sorry.

They are not "theories" They are "consensus thought". Consensus is not science, it is politics. The claim about every year being a new record is the lie. They tell us that the temp is a record by .004 degrees. What they refuse to admit is that thermocouples can only measure to within .01 degree. So how do they get that magical .004 number? They run all data through homologation programs and voila,they have their magic numbers.

Local data sets throughout the world are showing cooling. It is only after the climatologists have massaged the numbers that suddenly it is getting warmer.

Another shameless lie...they, of course, are theories, supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence.

"Local data sets"

If one does not understand what the word "global" means in "global climate", that person is simply not entitled to an opinion or any credibility in this topic.

A local data set is accurate. The climatologists have been caught twice falsifying data sets to support their lies. Both New Zealand and Australian climatologists have been forced to restore the data they were altering. Score two for the sceptics and ZERO for the climatologists on the lying front.

You have uttered more shameless lies in the last 15 minutes than any climatogist has in a lofetime of work.

But at least you have finally identified your particular version of "crazy": You accuse scientists of virtually all being liars or incompetent. Or both.

This makes you look utterly ridiculous and shows what shaky ground you stand on, and reaching this end is the only reason I have bothered to respond to you on this topic. I'm out....let me know the next time you plan to sit and debate actual scientists, or when we can expect the release of your 1000s of peer-reviewed scientific articles.

You accuse scientists of virtually all being liars or incompetent. Or both.

Michael Mann would have never won his Nobel Prize if he was incompetent and/or a liar. Right?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Toddy, have you ever been a major part of anything that won a major prize such as the Nobel Prize? I would bet not. Dr. Mann was a major figure in the writing of the paper that won the Nobel Prize.

Now Dr. Mann is considered one of the premier scientists in this discipline in the world. Are you even considered competent in your job? I really love the way you willfully ignorant 'Conservative' asses try to discredit people that have made real contributions to society, while they, the 'Conservatives' are doing all they can to tear down society.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have I ever claimed I won a Nobel Prize?

I'm just glad you can admit Mann lied when he said he won the Nobel.

 

[westwall]

Now Toddy, have you ever been a major part of anything that won a major prize such as the Nobel Prize? I would bet not. Dr. Mann was a major figure in the writing of the paper that won the Nobel Prize.

Now Dr. Mann is considered one of the premier scientists in this discipline in the world. Are you even considered competent in your job? I really love the way you willfully ignorant 'Conservative' asses try to discredit people that have made real contributions to society, while they, the 'Conservatives' are doing all they can to tear down society.

Your hero, mann, LIED about being a Nobel recipient. There is no rational way to explain that away. He's a liar, and PROVABLY so. If he weren't, he wouldn't have removed the claim from his bio.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now Toddy, have you ever been a major part of anything that won a major prize such as the Nobel Prize? I would bet not. Dr. Mann was a major figure in the writing of the paper that won the Nobel Prize.

Now Dr. Mann is considered one of the premier scientists in this discipline in the world. Are you even considered competent in your job? I really love the way you willfully ignorant 'Conservative' asses try to discredit people that have made real contributions to society, while they, the 'Conservatives' are doing all they can to tear down society.

Your hero, mann, LIED about being a Nobel recipient. There is no rational way to explain that away. He's a liar, and PROVABLY so. If he weren't, he wouldn't have removed the claim from his bio.

Game. Set. Match.

The IPCC won the prize, and they acknowledged him, by name, as a contributor. Boy oh boy, you really got him there. This loser is merely a "contributor" to nobel prize winning work, and not the direct recipient. Yeah boy, you sure are awesome next to him. As evidenced by your zero published science in any of these fields. You bristle at the slightest mention that, oh just maybe, you are both being dishonest and migjt not have a clue what you are talking about. When this happens, we all get treated to a synopsis of your resume (real or imagined) and a blubbering counterattack.


Yet here you are, trying to discredit a lifelong scientist (and all of the science, let's not play coy about that) . Trust me , this accomplished man would not throw a hissy like you do, should he find you questioning his honesty and competence. He doesnt need to....his work speaks for itself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now Toddy, have you ever been a major part of anything that won a major prize such as the Nobel Prize? I would bet not. Dr. Mann was a major figure in the writing of the paper that won the Nobel Prize.

Now Dr. Mann is considered one of the premier scientists in this discipline in the world. Are you even considered competent in your job? I really love the way you willfully ignorant 'Conservative' asses try to discredit people that have made real contributions to society, while they, the 'Conservatives' are doing all they can to tear down society.

Your hero, mann, LIED about being a Nobel recipient. There is no rational way to explain that away. He's a liar, and PROVABLY so. If he weren't, he wouldn't have removed the claim from his bio.

Game. Set. Match.

The IPCC won the prize, and they acknowledged him, by name, as a contributor. Boy oh boy, you really got him there. This loser is merely a "contributor" to nobel prize winning work, and not the direct recipient. Yeah boy, you sure are awesome next to him. As evidenced by your zero published science in any of these fields. You bristle at the slightest mention that, oh just maybe, you are both being dishonest and migjt not have a clue what you are talking about. When this happens, we all get treated to a synopsis of your resume (real or imagined) and a blubbering counterattack.


Yet here you are, trying to discredit a lifelong scientist (and all of the science, let's not play coy about that) . Trust me , this accomplished man would not throw a hissy like you do, should he find you questioning his honesty and competence. He doesnt need to....his work speaks for itself.

This loser is merely a "contributor" to nobel prize winning work, and not the direct recipient. Yeah boy, you sure are awesome next to him. As evidenced by your zero published science in any of these fields.

The Nobel Prize wasn't for science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now Toddy, have you ever been a major part of anything that won a major prize such as the Nobel Prize? I would bet not. Dr. Mann was a major figure in the writing of the paper that won the Nobel Prize.

Now Dr. Mann is considered one of the premier scientists in this discipline in the world. Are you even considered competent in your job? I really love the way you willfully ignorant 'Conservative' asses try to discredit people that have made real contributions to society, while they, the 'Conservatives' are doing all they can to tear down society.

Your hero, mann, LIED about being a Nobel recipient. There is no rational way to explain that away. He's a liar, and PROVABLY so. If he weren't, he wouldn't have removed the claim from his bio.

Game. Set. Match.

The IPCC won the prize, and they acknowledged him, by name, as a contributor. Boy oh boy, you really got him there. This loser is merely a "contributor" to nobel prize winning work, and not the direct recipient. Yeah boy, you sure are awesome next to him. As evidenced by your zero published science in any of these fields. You bristle at the slightest mention that, oh just maybe, you are both being dishonest and migjt not have a clue what you are talking about. When this happens, we all get treated to a synopsis of your resume (real or imagined) and a blubbering counterattack.


Yet here you are, trying to discredit a lifelong scientist (and all of the science, let's not play coy about that) . Trust me , this accomplished man would not throw a hissy like you do, should he find you questioning his honesty and competence. He doesnt need to....his work speaks for itself.

This loser is merely a "contributor" to nobel prize winning work, and not the direct recipient. Yeah boy, you sure are awesome next to him. As evidenced by your zero published science in any of these fields.

The Nobel Prize wasn't for science.

Correct, it was not specifically for science. It was even bigger than that. It was for compiling and disseminating the gained scientific knowledge, and how to use it. That knowledge was, among other things, Mann's scientific work.

"The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, so now he won part of a Nobel Prize, but it wasn't for science. LOL So you lied about it in the first place. LOL Gee, Toddy boi, you seem to have a problem with truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, so now he won part of a Nobel Prize, but it wasn't for science. LOL So you lied about it in the first place. LOL Gee, Toddy boi, you seem to have a problem with truth.

His "portion" of the collective award was, indeed, for his own scientific work.