- May 20, 2009
- 145,527
- 68,304
- 2,330
It's frightening how the Warmer Cult operates. There's not a shred of science on their sides, just some faked data and people getting paid to say "CONSENSUS!!" and that's what they try to pass off as science
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.
So I post real data on sea level, and Kosh just handwaves it away. Poor addled Kosh could not have illustrated any better what a brainwashed cultist he is. That's why we call them deniers, because they auto-deny any data that contradicts their cult's d6ogma.
Seriously Kosh, your fellow cultists all know by now what a loyal cultist you are. You don't have to keep proving it by digging your head even deeper into the sand. Closing your eyes and covering your ears will be quite sufficient to keep out that annoying real world.
Now, you won't convince anyone you're not a brainless parrot by doing all those cut-and-pastes concerning topics that you clearly don't understand yourself. If you understood them, you'd know why you cult website has failed so very badly at the science.
We could try to tell you where you're screwing up, but frankly, it's a waste of time, as you lack the brainpower necessary to understand. And there's no shame in that, as long as you understand what you don't understand. That's why I don't lecture brain surgeons on how to do brain surgery. What you're doing essentially is lecturing brain surgeons on how to do brain surgery.
Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.
Doesn't mean anything.
Analogous process is unemployment. Each month the change in employment is published. The actual number of people that became unemployeed is ten times as many. And the number of people that got jobs is ten times as well. It isn' t important. What is important is the difference between the two.
Same with body temperature. Normal is 98.6. If you have a temp of 100.4. Gosh, that's only 2.8%
See the problem? You don't know the difference between the numbers and what is being measured.
If your not clear on this, you can experiment by eating rat poison. Just 2 or 3% of your body weight.
Come back when you are done.
Then we can discuss why your IQ that is 3% below normal is significant
And you ignore the fact that at a concentration of 200ppm or less NOTHING grows on this planet.
CO2 is essential to life on this planet and to date you have failed to show that CO2 drives climate.
In fact all empirical data shows the exact opposite.
You don't even have correlation to fall back on. That train left the station 17 years ago.
And you ignore the fact that at a concentration of 200ppm or less NOTHING grows on this planet.
He has ignored nothing. The point is irrelevant to this discussion. It is an obvious red herring on your part.
CO2 is essential to life on this planet and to date you have failed to show that CO2 drives climate.
CO2 has been very thoroughly demonstrated to affect climate.
In fact all empirical data shows the exact opposite.
This statement is either blithering ignorance or a bald-faced lie. Take your pick.
You don't even have correlation to fall back on. That train left the station 17 years ago.
Ditto.
Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?
Incredible.
Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?
Incredible.
Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?
Incredible.
There is no proof of where the increased CO2 is coming from. We do KNOW that 800 years after major warming events the Co2 levels rise. It's been 800 years after the MWP so that is the proximal cause of the rise. There is more correlational evidence to support my hypothesis than yours.
Correlation does not equal causation but at least I have that to back me up....you've got nothin'
dude, I already pointed out you're fear mongering is a 2 and 3/4 inches rise over 23 years and 25/32'nd rise since 2008.
Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?
Incredible.
There is no proof of where the increased CO2 is coming from. We do KNOW that 800 years after major warming events the Co2 levels rise. It's been 800 years after the MWP so that is the proximal cause of the rise. There is more correlational evidence to support my hypothesis than yours.
Correlation does not equal causation but at least I have that to back me up....you've got nothin'
REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells? How about fossil fuel bookkeeping?
************************************************************************************************
Present CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.
[ Schimel et al., Chapter 2: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, Section 2.1.3: Concentration Projections and Stabilisation Calculations, p. 82 (and pp. 7686 generally) in IPCC SAR WG1 1996.]
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
How did they get fooled into believing Mann Tree Rings were science?
How did they get fooled into believing Mann Tree Rings were science?
How did they get fooled into believing Mann Tree Rings were science?
How did you get fooled into believing you could tell the difference or that ANYONE would care IN THE SLIGHTEST what your opinion might be?
Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?
Incredible.
There is no proof of where the increased CO2 is coming from. We do KNOW that 800 years after major warming events the Co2 levels rise. It's been 800 years after the MWP so that is the proximal cause of the rise. There is more correlational evidence to support my hypothesis than yours.
Correlation does not equal causation but at least I have that to back me up....you've got nothin'
REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells? How about fossil fuel bookkeeping?
************************************************************************************************
Present CO2 levels greatly exceed the range found in the ice core data. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.
[ Schimel et al., Chapter 2: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, Section 2.1.3: Concentration Projections and Stabilisation Calculations, p. 82 (and pp. 7686 generally) in IPCC SAR WG1 1996.]
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?
Incredible.
How did they get fooled into believing Mann Tree Rings were science?
How did you get fooled into believing you could tell the difference or that ANYONE would care IN THE SLIGHTEST what your opinion might be?
REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells?
Correlation does not equal CAUSATION.
REALLY? Are you actually that stupid or are you having memory failures? Does the term "isotopic analysis" ring any familiar bells?
Correlation does not equal CAUSATION.
Ah, another fine example of the Westwall two-step.
That is, Westwall knows the data -- in this case, the isotopic analysis -- says he's full of shit. Hence, he attempts to switch the topic to something completely different, in this case "correlation does not equal causation", something that has zilch to do with isotopic analysis.
And then that's followed up by Kosh and Frank doing their cult parrot routines. Same old same old. It would only be unusual if they weren't cult parrots.
Are you shitting me? Are you actually going to try to tell us that the excess CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is NOT from fossil fuel combustion?
Incredible.