No, you are fucking pathetic.
We talked about the glaciers in Norway getting larger on this messageboard a long time ago, but the info Sinatra is using is made up by a "former architect that wrote a self published book about a coming ice age."
All Those Growing Glaciers...
- Thread starter Sinatra
- Start date
No, you are fucking pathetic.
We talked about the glaciers in Norway getting larger on this messageboard a long time ago, but the info Sinatra is using is made up by a "former architect that wrote a self published book about a coming ice age."
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
You're on the wrong side of ice growth, Chrissy.
Learn it, live it, love it.
Learn it, live it, love it.
I love busting you guys.
You are ignoring the bogus website info that is the topic of this thread.
That is what you do when the facts don't fit your worldview.
Sinatra is busted again!
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
You're not busting diddly-poo.
Calling the OP website bogus doesn't make it so on your say-so alone.
Speaking of busted.....
Calling the OP website bogus doesn't make it so on your say-so alone.
Speaking of busted.....
- Thread starter
- #26
Monbiot?
Ah yes...
___
Climategate - Monbiot Thinks They Should Apologize, Promise To Do Better, And Be Left Alone
November 30, 2009 07:14 AM EST (Updated: November 30, 2009 11:32 AM EST)
George Monbiot, one of Europe's best-known global warming alarmists, is calling on Phil Jones, one of the climate scientists involved in the email scandal, to resign. Then, Monbiot thinks that if the scientists apologize and promise to never let something like this happen again (meaning, I guess, manipulating data and lying and perpetrating a fraud on the world with that manipulated data), that all should be well again.
Poor Monbiot says he feels so alone. (Boo hoo.) He says that "climate deniers" are making "wild claims" about the email material. He also does admit that the emails are very damaging. (I'm not sure how both can be true.) Then, Monbiot says that most of the environmentalists have going into denial, alleging that the emails are no big deal.
Monbiot is hoping that public awareness of the e-mail scandal can be sufficiently contained (especially in the United States and Europe) to prevent a full-scale exposé of the extent to which so-called "climate science" has been systemically corrupted and politicized by the IPCC and its enabling "experts" at the CRU and similar institutions. Readers interested in investigating evidence that shows the CRU e-mail scandal is just the tip of the iceberg may want to check other sources, such as those here, here, and here, that have been reporting on and documenting the bias, abuses, and unethical practices of the climate alarmists for years.
Full article here:
Climategate - Monbiot Thinks They Should... | Gather
___
The only one "busted" Chris is you - once again proving you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the legitimate contradictions and now evident manipulation that is global warming "science".
Your failures are piling on atop one another these days...
- Thread starter
- #27
Monbiot?
Ah yes...
___
Climategate - Monbiot Thinks They Should Apologize, Promise To Do Better, And Be Left Alone
November 30, 2009 07:14 AM EST (Updated: November 30, 2009 11:32 AM EST)
George Monbiot, one of Europe's best-known global warming alarmists, is calling on Phil Jones, one of the climate scientists involved in the email scandal, to resign. Then, Monbiot thinks that if the scientists apologize and promise to never let something like this happen again (meaning, I guess, manipulating data and lying and perpetrating a fraud on the world with that manipulated data), that all should be well again.
Poor Monbiot says he feels so alone. (Boo hoo.) He says that "climate deniers" are making "wild claims" about the email material. He also does admit that the emails are very damaging. (I'm not sure how both can be true.) Then, Monbiot says that most of the environmentalists have going into denial, alleging that the emails are no big deal.
Monbiot is hoping that public awareness of the e-mail scandal can be sufficiently contained (especially in the United States and Europe) to prevent a full-scale exposé of the extent to which so-called "climate science" has been systemically corrupted and politicized by the IPCC and its enabling "experts" at the CRU and similar institutions. Readers interested in investigating evidence that shows the CRU e-mail scandal is just the tip of the iceberg may want to check other sources, such as those here, here, and here, that have been reporting on and documenting the bias, abuses, and unethical practices of the climate alarmists for years.
Full article here:
Climategate - Monbiot Thinks They Should... | Gather
___
The only one "busted" Chris is you - once again proving you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the legitimate contradictions and now evident manipulation that is global warming "science".
Your failures are piling on atop one another these days...
,,,
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Ooopsie.
Looks like Chrissy isn't up on current events....Yet again.
Looks like Chrissy isn't up on current events....Yet again.
- Thread starter
- #29
Ooopsie.
Looks like Chrissy isn't up on current events....Yet again.
His failings have become epic!!!
He cites an op-ed based on the remarks of one of the most vocal global warmist alarmists in the world as evidence that glaciers are not actually expanding all over the globe?
Monbiot is now turning on some within the very same global warming community he comes from in the hopes of saving his own alarmist skin.
Chris has surpassed Bobo as the single greatest idiot within this forum - a truly ignorant knuckle-dragging flat-earth warmer...
Ooopsie.
Looks like Chrissy isn't up on current events....Yet again.
His failings have become epic!!!
He cites an op-ed based on the remarks of one of the most vocal global warmist alarmists in the world as evidence that glaciers are not actually expanding all over the globe?
Monbiot is now turning on some within the very same global warming community he comes from in the hopes of saving his own alarmist skin.
Chris has surpassed Bobo as the single greatest idiot within this forum - a truly ignorant knuckle-dragging flat-earth warmer...
Thanks for making this so fun....Sinatra. And thanks again from proving my point the other day that the winters here are warmer than they were in 1985.
But there, indeed, was all the material that Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures — or something resembling the figures — he quoted. "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source, which Bellamy also cited in his email to me, was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology".
21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential.
It wasn't hard to find out that this is one of his vehicles: LaRouche is named on the front page of the magazine's website, and the edition Bellamy cites contains an article beginning: "We in LaRouche's Youth Movement find ourselves in combat with an old enemy that destroys human beings ... it is empiricism."
Oh well, at least there is a source for Bellamy's figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn't say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the internet. They were first published online by Professor Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his website, SEPP - Science & Environmental Policy Project, and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the US National Centre for Public Policy Research and countless others. They have even found their way into the Washington Post.
They are constantly quoted as evidence that man-made climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: "A paper published in Science in 1989." Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one. Surely?
I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat.
So it wasn't looking too good for Bellamy, or Singer, or any of the deniers who have cited these figures. But there was still one mystery to clear up. While Bellamy's source claimed that 55% of 625 glaciers are advancing, Bellamy claimed that 555 of them — or 89% — are advancing. This figure appears to exist nowhere else. But on the standard English keyboard, 5 and % occupy the same key. If you try to hit %, but fail to press shift, you get 555, instead of 55%. This is the only explanation I can produce for his figure. When I challenged him, he admitted that there had been "a glitch of the electronics".
So, in Bellamy's poor typing, we have the basis for a whole new front in the war against climate science. The 555 figure is now being cited as definitive evidence that global warming is a "fraud", a "scam", a "lie". I phoned New Scientist to ask if Bellamy had requested a correction. He had not.
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Bellamy-Junk-Science10may05.htm
Last edited:
Ooopsie.
Looks like Chrissy isn't up on current events....Yet again.
His failings have become epic!!!
He cites an op-ed based on the remarks of one of the most vocal global warmist alarmists in the world as evidence that glaciers are not actually expanding all over the globe?
Monbiot is now turning on some within the very same global warming community he comes from in the hopes of saving his own alarmist skin.
Chris has surpassed Bobo as the single greatest idiot within this forum - a truly ignorant knuckle-dragging flat-earth warmer...
Please, please post some more links to former architects who make up bogus sources to sell books on their websites.
YOU ARE THE BEST!!!
Now here is the real story from the World Glacier Monitoring Service which has been monitoring glaciers since 1894....
ScienceDaily (Feb. 4, 2009) — Glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates. Tentative figures for the year 2007, of the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, indicate a further loss of average ice thickness of roughly 0.67 meter water equivalent (m w.e.). Some glaciers in the European Alps lost up to 2.5 m w.e.
The new still tentative data of more than 80 glaciers confirm the global trend of fast ice loss since 1980. Glaciers with long-term observation series (30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges) have experienced a reduction in total thickness of more than 11 m w.e. until 2007. The average annual ice loss during 1980-1999 was roughly 0.3 m w.e. per year. Since 2000, this rate has increased to about 0.7 m w.e. per year.
Michael Zemp, glaciologist and research associate of the WGMS, said: «The average ice loss in 2007 was not as extreme as in 2006, but there were large differences between mountain ranges. Glaciers in the European Alps lost up to 2.5 meters water equivalent of ice, whereas maritime glaciers in Scandinavia were able to gain more than a meter in thickness. However, 2007 is now the sixth year of this century in which the average ice loss of the reference glaciers has exceeded half a meter. This has resulted in a more than doubling of the melt rates of the 1980s and 90s.
Glaciers Around The Globe Continue To Melt At High Rates
ScienceDaily (Feb. 4, 2009) — Glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates. Tentative figures for the year 2007, of the World Glacier Monitoring Service at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, indicate a further loss of average ice thickness of roughly 0.67 meter water equivalent (m w.e.). Some glaciers in the European Alps lost up to 2.5 m w.e.
The new still tentative data of more than 80 glaciers confirm the global trend of fast ice loss since 1980. Glaciers with long-term observation series (30 glaciers in 9 mountain ranges) have experienced a reduction in total thickness of more than 11 m w.e. until 2007. The average annual ice loss during 1980-1999 was roughly 0.3 m w.e. per year. Since 2000, this rate has increased to about 0.7 m w.e. per year.
Michael Zemp, glaciologist and research associate of the WGMS, said: «The average ice loss in 2007 was not as extreme as in 2006, but there were large differences between mountain ranges. Glaciers in the European Alps lost up to 2.5 meters water equivalent of ice, whereas maritime glaciers in Scandinavia were able to gain more than a meter in thickness. However, 2007 is now the sixth year of this century in which the average ice loss of the reference glaciers has exceeded half a meter. This has resulted in a more than doubling of the melt rates of the 1980s and 90s.
Glaciers Around The Globe Continue To Melt At High Rates
- Thread starter
- #33
Ooopsie.
Looks like Chrissy isn't up on current events....Yet again.
His failings have become epic!!!
He cites an op-ed based on the remarks of one of the most vocal global warmist alarmists in the world as evidence that glaciers are not actually expanding all over the globe?
Monbiot is now turning on some within the very same global warming community he comes from in the hopes of saving his own alarmist skin.
Chris has surpassed Bobo as the single greatest idiot within this forum - a truly ignorant knuckle-dragging flat-earth warmer...
Thanks for making this so fun....Sinatra. And thanks again from proving my point the other day that the winters here are warmer than they were in 1985.
_____
Oh, let's look even more closely at those Norfolk numbers now - since you are still clinging to hope that it has gotten sooooo much warmer than it once was. Now let's look at
year-to-year median temperature shall we?
2008 = 61 degrees
2004-2005 = 61 degrees
2000-2001 = 59 degrees
1994-1995 = 62 degrees
1990-1991 = 63 degrees (Norfolk 2 degrees cooler last year)
1984-1985 = 61 degrees (the era of your "cold winters" no colder than last year...)
1980-1981 = 59 degrees (Brrrrr!!!!)
1974-1975 = 61 degrees
1970-1971 = 60 degrees
1964-1965 = 61 degrees
1960-1961 = 61 degrees (Temps last year the same as 40 years ago...)
1954-1955 = 62 degrees (It was warmer 50 years ago?? Global Warming huh???)
1950-1951 = 60 degrees
1948-1949 = 62 degrees (This is as far back as weatherunderground stats go)
So what we have here dear boy, is a DECLINE in year-to-year temps in 2008 from Norfolk Virginia temps of 60 YEARS AGO. Overall, the temps have been relatively stable year-to-year, depending on severity of winters or summer months - in spite of your much-loved
CO2 emissions.
This is the temperature data of your own backyard Chris. You don't even know that history, do you? You make your silly observational inputs regarding the "cold" winters of 25 years ago without realizing the year-to-year data shows the actual temps to be very similar to those of today.
In short, no drastic "global warming" issues for Norfolk Virginia.
Better luck next time...
Thanks for making this so fun....Sinatra. And thanks again from proving my point the other day that the winters here are warmer than they were in 1985.
_____
Oh, let's look even more closely at those Norfolk numbers now - since you are still clinging to hope that it has gotten sooooo much warmer than it once was. Now let's look at
year-to-year median temperature shall we?
2008 = 61 degrees
2004-2005 = 61 degrees
2000-2001 = 59 degrees
1994-1995 = 62 degrees
1990-1991 = 63 degrees (Norfolk 2 degrees cooler last year)
1984-1985 = 61 degrees (the era of your "cold winters" no colder than last year...)
1980-1981 = 59 degrees (Brrrrr!!!!)
1974-1975 = 61 degrees
1970-1971 = 60 degrees
1964-1965 = 61 degrees
1960-1961 = 61 degrees (Temps last year the same as 40 years ago...)
1954-1955 = 62 degrees (It was warmer 50 years ago?? Global Warming huh???)
1950-1951 = 60 degrees
1948-1949 = 62 degrees (This is as far back as weatherunderground stats go)
So what we have here dear boy, is a DECLINE in year-to-year temps in 2008 from Norfolk Virginia temps of 60 YEARS AGO. Overall, the temps have been relatively stable year-to-year, depending on severity of winters or summer months - in spite of your much-loved
CO2 emissions.
This is the temperature data of your own backyard Chris. You don't even know that history, do you? You make your silly observational inputs regarding the "cold" winters of 25 years ago without realizing the year-to-year data shows the actual temps to be very similar to those of today.
In short, no drastic "global warming" issues for Norfolk Virginia.
Better luck next time...
I used the links you provided.
Low temperature in the winter of 1985 was -2.
Low temperature in the winter of 2009 was 15 degrees.
The average high and the average low were 1 degree higher in 2009 over 1985.
Thanks again for providing the link to the Weather Underground.
No need to lie about it.
But then, that's what you do....
http://www.wunderground.com/history...985&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
http://www.wunderground.com/history...009&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #35
Thanks for making this so fun....Sinatra. And thanks again from proving my point the other day that the winters here are warmer than they were in 1985.
_____
Oh, let's look even more closely at those Norfolk numbers now - since you are still clinging to hope that it has gotten sooooo much warmer than it once was. Now let's look at
year-to-year median temperature shall we?
2008 = 61 degrees
2004-2005 = 61 degrees
2000-2001 = 59 degrees
1994-1995 = 62 degrees
1990-1991 = 63 degrees (Norfolk 2 degrees cooler last year)
1984-1985 = 61 degrees (the era of your "cold winters" no colder than last year...)
1980-1981 = 59 degrees (Brrrrr!!!!)
1974-1975 = 61 degrees
1970-1971 = 60 degrees
1964-1965 = 61 degrees
1960-1961 = 61 degrees (Temps last year the same as 40 years ago...)
1954-1955 = 62 degrees (It was warmer 50 years ago?? Global Warming huh???)
1950-1951 = 60 degrees
1948-1949 = 62 degrees (This is as far back as weatherunderground stats go)
So what we have here dear boy, is a DECLINE in year-to-year temps in 2008 from Norfolk Virginia temps of 60 YEARS AGO. Overall, the temps have been relatively stable year-to-year, depending on severity of winters or summer months - in spite of your much-loved
CO2 emissions.
This is the temperature data of your own backyard Chris. You don't even know that history, do you? You make your silly observational inputs regarding the "cold" winters of 25 years ago without realizing the year-to-year data shows the actual temps to be very similar to those of today.
In short, no drastic "global warming" issues for Norfolk Virginia.
Better luck next time...
I used the links you provided.
GOOD! Can't run from the truth old boy.
No global warming in your neck of the woods. The temp history posted above tells that tale - and you have failed yet again...
- Thread starter
- #37
Since the year to year temps are no higher - even lower than many previous years, then to follow your attempt at logic would indicate that IF the winters are more mild, the summers must be more mild as well - indicating NO issue of global warming for Norfolk Virginia.
Also, if you wish to cite one low temp in 1985 as more severe winters, then, you would also have to cite the high temp record for Virginia in the 1950s as temperatures COOLING since then.
You see dear boy, you have constructed a trap of your own making. Your assertion Norfolk winters are more mild is incorrect. Your assertion of global warming is incorrect.
You actually have proven for all to now read that you know little to nothing on this issue - you parrot the flat earther global warming party line, without indicating your own actual understanding of those things your are speaking to....
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Heartland Institute - SourceWatch
Secrecy on funding sources
While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:
"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldnÂ’t or wouldnÂ’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[26]
It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."[27]
Following the compilation of this SourceWatch article and articles on other websites, Heartland posted a list of responses to what it claimed was "misinformation" about the group. On its funding it stated that "in 2007 it received 71 percent of its income from foundations, 16 percent from corporations, and 11 percent from individuals. No corporate donor gave more than 5 percent of its annual budget ... ExxonMobil has not contributed to Heartland since 2006. Indeed, gifts from all energy companies - coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear - combined did not exceed 5 percent of HeartlandÂ’s budget in 2007."[27] (Heartland states that its 2007 revenue was approximately $5.2 million.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag Energy companies -- "coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear" -- contributed approximately 5% or around $260,000.)
Foundation funders
Media Transparency lists Heartland as having received $2,960,555 (unadjusted for inflation) in grants between 1986 and 2006 from a range of foundations including[38]:
Armstrong Foundation
Barre Seid Foundation
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
Jaquelin Hume Foundation
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
Hickory Foundation
JM Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Rodney Fund
Roe Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
Walton Family Foundation
Exxon funding
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $676,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[39] (As mentioned above, Heartland insist that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[27]
Contributions include:
$30,000 in 1998;
$115,000 in 2000;
$90,000 in 2001;
$15,000 in 2002;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
$119,000 in 2005; and
$115,000 in 2006.
Since the year to year temps are no higher - even lower than many previous years, then to follow your attempt at logic would indicate that IF the winters are more mild, the summers must be more mild as well - indicating NO issue of global warming for Norfolk Virginia.
Also, if you wish to cite one low temp in 1985 as more severe winters, then, you would also have to cite the high temp record for Virginia in the 1950s as temperatures COOLING since then.
You see dear boy, you have constructed a trap of your own making. Your assertion Norfolk winters are more mild is incorrect. Your assertion of global warming is incorrect.
You actually have proven for all to now read that you know little to nothing on this issue - you parrot the flat earther global warming party line, without indicating your own actual understanding of those things your are speaking to....
Guess what pal, the summers are milder. It's not nearly as hot or as cold as it used to be here.
Could be because the ocean is warmer and there's more water vapor and that makes the weather milder.
Once again, thanks for proving my point.
You are the best!
- Thread starter
- #40
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The Virginia Department of Corrections arrested one of it's own for smuggling drugs into a state prison,- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
‘A trucker who couldn’t speak English killed my husband – Trump is right to ban them- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 1
-
