Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This one is truly a legend in his own mind. I suppose that's why he's been reduced to circlejerks with other cultists in online SafeSpaces.They were showed up
This one is truly a legend in his own mind. I suppose that's why he's been reduced to circlejerks with other cultists in online SafeSpaces.
It's so good to be on the rational side. To "win", all we have to do is point to reality and describe it. No tantrums necessary, no need to fake endless lunatic conspiracy theories.
Now, should I make him run again by talking about the science? Nah. I'll save that for the next post.
Understood. You raved about some nonsense, did a massive Gish Gallop, linked to some kook political source, and then declared victory after nobody paid it any attention.Here is the full quote:
Before you try to tell me what you believe the earth's climate is going to do, you should know something about the earth's climate first. But you go right ahead and paste a few more links you can't discuss.You are a moron because you are so stupid on this issue
Let's just do this
Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world. If you knew why you could discuss this intelligently but you don't so you can't. Those are the facts.You just won't give up your "forest fires used to always be naturally-caused, therefore humans can't cause forest fires!" argument, despite the whole world laughing at it.
You are one persistently stupid cult imbecile. The average second-grader understands why you're being an idiot, but you can't grasp it. You really shouldn't be bothering the adults.
Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending upon which data sets they use.It's determined by facts, all of which say you're completely wrong.
Your idiot theory does not explain the directly observed stratospheric cooling, so it's wrong.
Your idiot theory does not explain the directly observed increased in backradiation, so it's wrong.
Your idiot theory does not explain the directly observed polar amplificiation, so it's wrong.
Your idiot theory does not explain the directly observed decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, so it's wrong.
This isn't a debate. The facts say you're wrong, so you're wrong. No amount of Gish galloping and spamming graphs will change that.
And your idiot theory has nothing backing it up. "IT'S A NATURAL CYCLE!" is just handwaving, the invoking of magic. Natural cycles have causes. Neither you nor any denier can explain what's driving this current "natural cycle". It's very definitely not the sun, since temperature have been skyrocketing as solar output has decreased.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that all the data says your claims are wrong.Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world.
Understood. All the data says your claims are wrong, and you can't address that data. Honesty is not an option for you, so you see insults and running as your only viable option.If you knew why you could discuss this intelligently but you don't so you can't. Those are the facts.
Scientists reach opposite conclusions depending upon which data sets they use.
Everyone has access to all the same data. So there is no fraudulent data. Just disingenuous use of data such as including the urban temperature stations and using LOW variability solar output datasets. Which then makes all of the claims you believe fraudulent.Which has nothing to do with the fact that all the data says your claims are wrong.
Understood. All the data says your claims are wrong, and you can't address that data. Honesty is not an option for you, so you see insults and running as your only viable option.
That's why they shouldn't use your side's entirely fraudulent data. Meanwhile, all the real data says you're totally wrong.
It would be open fraud to leave such data out. That's the kind of fraudulent data I'm talking about, and it's not surprising that you endorse such fraud. Honest people don't cherrypick data, but you're here demanding cherrypicking.Just disingenuous use of data such as including the urban temperature stations
I am unable to make any sense of that. Can you expound upon that conspiracy theory?and using LOW variability solar output datasets.
Understood. You raved about some nonsense, did a massive Gish Gallop, linked to some kook political source, and then declared victory after nobody paid it any attention.
You know, the usual denier behavior.
So THAT'S why you have come among us!Pure TROLLING Thread by Low IQ loser who can't actually debate any topic in the section.
Any other board (than USMB/Fox News Junior High) This Troll gets Deleted or moved South.
`
`
Incorrect. It's fraud attributing the UHI effect to CO2.It would be open fraud to leave such data out.
The UHI effect obscures the natural variability.A. Temps at urban stations have been climbing more slowly than temps at rural stations, demolishing your conspiracy theory.
You're literally just too goddamn stupid to be discussing the topic. Anything that the normal people say whooshes right over your head. The cult gave you some talking points, and that settles it for you.Incorrect. It's fraud attributing the UHI effect to CO2.
Instead of seething about all those years of undergoing so much humiliation, I suggest you look at the bright side. You've demonstrated to the other cultists how you're willing to humiliate and debase yourself on behalf of the cult, and that's earned you massive amounts of brownie points with your cult."Your next post will be another screaming pile of crap."
Much like that time I single-handedly beat up seven Proud Boy white supremacist thugs. I'm a legend in my own mind as well."They were showed up in the Where is the Climate Emergency? post I made months ago
Incorrect. It's fraud attributing the UHI effect to CO2.
What does that have to do with attributing the UHI effect to CO2? It's a wholly different phenomenon that has been left unaccounted for just as heat from electricity usage has been left unaccounted for. Changes in albedo add up.Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found
Abstract All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by...journals.ametsoc.org
What does that have to do with attributing the UHI effect to CO2? It's a wholly different phenomenon that has been left unaccounted for just as heat from electricity usage has been left unaccounted for. Changes in albedo add up.
