The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[mamooth]

Why does your chart start in 1980?

Because 1979 is when the satellite record starts. I imagine they moved it to 1980 there just to be neat.

If you use different data types to go back furuther, you find that 1979 is not any sort of peak of a cycle. Ice decline was already on the way before that. The peak is more like 1960, and it's a pretty minor one compared to previous years.

Nueva serie de extensión del hielo marino ártico en septiembre entre 1935 y 2014

(english version here) Acabamos de publicar en la Revista de Climatología (ISSN 1578-8768) el artículo «Nueva serie de extensión del hielo marino ártico en septiembre entre 1935 y 2014»: – D…

diablobanquisa.wordpress.com

So, if you're asking, no, I'm not cherrypicking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why does your chart start in 1980?

Because 1979 is when the satellite record starts. I imagine they moved it to 1980 there just to be neat.

If you use different data types to go back furuther, you find that 1979 is not any sort of peak of a cycle. Ice decline was already on the way before that. The peak is more like 1960, and it's a pretty minor one compared to previous years.

Nueva serie de extensión del hielo marino ártico en septiembre entre 1935 y 2014

(english version here) Acabamos de publicar en la Revista de Climatología (ISSN 1578-8768) el artículo «Nueva serie de extensión del hielo marino ártico en septiembre entre 1935 y 2014»: – D…

diablobanquisa.wordpress.com

So, if you're asking, no, I'm not cherrypicking.

The peak is more like 1960, and it's a pretty minor one compared to previous years.

What about 1860? 1760?

 

[mamooth]

What about 1860? 1760?

I'm not interested in your games. If you have a point to make, then state it directly.

 

[P@triot]

Don't project your side's tendency for hero-worship on to us. Gore isn't a scientist, so we don't talk about him..

Bwahahaha! Watching you try to distance yourself from your messiah is fuck'n priceless.

He flies in a private jet (giving off unimaginable C02 emissions) all over the world to tell us how the left has anointed him as the official spokesperson of the "Global Warming" scam.

And not a one of you stood up to deny it. Well, at least not until I owned your ass with this thread

 

[P@triot]

Anyways, Gore Rule invoked. Any time some cultist invokes Gore, he forfeits the thread for his side. Those who can, they talk about the science. Those who can't, they run and deflect by raving about Gore.

Mammaries is openly admitting that the left lies to us, and thus we shouldn't believe them about anything (especially the "Global Warming" scam), but he was too dumb to realize it so I had to point it out to him

 

[P@triot]

No, _Nature Climate Change_ would not be posting a crazy gish gallop of crap.

Bwahahaha! It was there snowflake. We all saw it. You saw it too when it was originally posted (but you're just too dumb to remember it).

It's ok, Mammaries. If you were intelligent enough to remember beyond yesterday, you'd be a conservative

 

[P@triot]

This simple graphic illustrates how you're lying-by-cherrypicking.

This simple graphic illustrates how you're lying-by-cherrypicking.

Why does your chart start in 1980?

You have to remember, Toddsterpatriot - simpletons are easily duped by simple graphics.

See Mammaries, you're trying to backpedal on the issue. We were told it would be completely melted by 2015. That's the issue. That's the discussion.

And what happened? By the end of 2014, it had expanded an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles). Proof that you were lied to.

 

[basquebromance]

the rise of wind and solar during the Obama years, after decades of promise, was one of many of the Obama presidency succeses. Obama's energy record is one of promises made and kept with remarkable constintency. it is a demonstration of the value of persistent effort and measured risk-taking in the pursuit of a long-standing national goal

dealing with climate change or personally conserving energy is a sign of personal virtue of a citizen but not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.

here's that policy in summary: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

the nation that leads the clean energy economy is the one that will lead the global economy. if Trump doesn't recognize that, America will fall behind, my friends!

this whole climate change thing is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity, to steal humanity's wealth. my friends, as long as God is still up there, and He promised to maintain the seasons and that the cold and heat would never cease as long as earth remains.

here's what we're gonna do, my friends. Trump needs to LIE to americans, and persuade them with narratives, like a novel, instead of data. my friends: a compelling story, even if it is a lie, can be more emotionally compelling than the dry recitation of truth.

 

[P@triot]

the rise of wind and solar during the Obama years, after decades of promise, was one of many of the Obama presidency succeses.

What exactly did it "succeed" in? Driving up energy costs? True, but is that something to be proud about? Limiting energy output and capacity? True again. But again, is that something to be proud about?

Obama's energy record is one of promises made and kept with remarkable constintency. it is a demonstration of the value of persistent effort and measured risk-taking in the pursuit of a long-standing national goal

What exactly is "risky" about subsidizing a failed pursuit to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars?

I guarantee that your dumb ass doesn't know that Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House in the late 1970's. Almost 50 fucking years later, and many trillions of federal government dollars, and it is still not a viable solution on any level.

he nation that leads the clean energy economy is the one that will lead the global economy. if Trump doesn't recognize that, America will fall behind, my friends!

Uh...President Trump's policies (of "drill baby, drill") not only produced an abundance of powerful, affordable energy for US citizens, but it made the United States #1 in the world in oil and natural gas production.

Facts matter. You're devoid of them. Have a seat, clown.

 

[mamooth]

See Mammaries, you're trying to backpedal on the issue. We were told it would be completely melted by 2015.

No we weren't. You're just lying outright, because you lie more readily than normal humans breathe.

You can show you're not lying, of course. Just show such a prediction in any IPCC work prior to 2015. We'll wait.

Remember, you lying about us only makes you look bad. If you could back up your cult propaganda, you wouldn't have to lie constantly. But you can't, so you do.

 

[mamooth]

No, _Nature Climate Change_ would not be posting a crazy gish gallop of crap.

Bwahahaha! It was there snowflake. We all saw it.

You. Are. Lying.

You saw it too when it was originally posted (but you're just too dumb to remember it).

You. Are. Lying.

And everyone knows it

You linked to a kook right conspiracy blog, and claimed it was a link to _Nature Climate Change_. Outright lie on your part.

And you can't show us where this article supposedly published is in _Nature Climate Change_. You have _nothing_ to back up your BS, because it was just something your kook blog made up.

It's exactly as a I said. You're a brainless cult parrot who copied something from a conspiracy blog without verifying it. Because you're a particularly gutless pussy, you refuse to own up to any mistake, so you're doubling down on your stupid now. That escalates your sleaze from stupidity to deliberate dishonesty.

It's ok, Mammaries. If you were intelligent enough to remember beyond yesterday, you'd be a conservative

Since you lied about this and have no remorse for doing so, it's a given that you'll lie about anything. So why should anyone talk to you? You're just going to lie back at them.

 

[P@triot]

Folks...I want you to note how dishonest Mammaries operates. First he lies about a well-known issue, and follows that up with accusing me of lying.

No we weren't. You're just lying outright, because you lie more readily than normal humans breathe.

No here is where things get interesting. In sentence one he infers I have no proof. However, he knows that I have proof. I've already posted it. It is indisputable. So immediately attempts to slip in a condition (in this case, the "IPCC"):

You can show you're not lying, of course. Just show such a prediction in any IPCC work prior to 2015. We'll wait.

Notice how she slips in the condition there (because she knows she is wrong)? I never made any claim about the IPCC. Everything I've posted as been 100% accurate, backed with indisputable links.

And this is where little boobs/little brains Mammaries loses her shit. See, I've allowed her to paint herself into a corner: since every claim they've ever made has never come to fruition - she either has to admit that "Global Warming" was a scam designed to funnel power and money to the left, or she has to admit that the left is a bunch of liars who we shouldn't listen to (which means even if "Global Warming" were real, we should reject the lying left's claims about it and policies for it).

Catch-22. Mic-drop.

 

[P@triot]

So why should anyone talk to you? You're just going to lie back at them.

For the same reason you do. I fill this board with 100% fact. That's why you keep coming back. You're terrified that people will become informed/enlightened by the links to articles which expose the bullshit you peddle.

 

[P@triot]

See Mammaries, you're trying to backpedal on the issue. We were told it would be completelymelted by 2015.

No we weren't. You're just lying outright, because you lie more readily than normal humans breathe.

Oh...this one is really going to sting, small boobs/small brains Mammaries. This is from hard-left, propaganda site "Fact Check". You are soooo fucked now.

While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists

See, left-wing Dumbocrat Al Gore has gone around the world claiming he is quoting scientists (as has Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, AOC, and many others). So either the "science" was fake, or the left lies to us (in which case we should never listen to them). Which one is it, Mammaries? We'll let you decide for all of us, because it doesn't make a difference to us either way!

Did Al Gore Predict Earth's Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014?

In the late 2000s, the former U.S. Vice President sometimes inaccurately represented studies that predicted the timeline for an ice-free Arctic.

www.snopes.com

 

[mamooth]

Folks...I want you to note how dishonest Mammaries operates.

Mmm. So tasty. Butthurt commie losers cry the most delicious tears.

No here is where things get interesting. In sentence one he infers I have no proof. However, he knows that I have proof. I've already posted it.

Suuure you have. Just like your Gish Gallop of crap came from _Nature Climate Science_. That's a topic that you no longer want to discuss, which happens every time you get busted for fraud.

Notice how she slips in the condition there (because she knows she is wrong)? I never made any claim about the IPCC. Everything I've posted as been 100% accurate, backed with indisputable links.

That's your trump card, telling the big lie that Gore represents all climate science? You are flailing.

Can you even remember what you were originally crying about? I suppose it doesn't matter. For you, finding reasons to cry is the goal.

For me, the goal is smacking Trump cult commie sore-loser traitors and other domestic enemies of the USA. Obviosly, based on the quantity of tears I'm seeing here, I'm doing it well. Now, run back and ask Putin or your handlers how to respond to that.

 

[P@triot]

Mmm. So tasty. Butthurt...

Is Mammaries calling butts delicious?

 

[P@triot]

Hahahaha!! Oh mamooth!! Hahahaha!! Taking screen shots so that when you try to deny this one because the link no longer works, I’ll be able to humiliate you all over again (as I always do)!!

Climate scientist admits key climate change metric is just something experts 'chose': 'Symbolic marker' | Blaze Media

Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.What is the background?The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report in 2018...

www.theblaze.com

 

[mamooth]

Hahahaha!! Oh mamooth]!! Hahahaha!!

Are you okay? You sound hysterical. That is, craving my attention even more than usual.

Taking screen shots so that when you try to deny this one because the link no longer works, I’ll be able to humiliate you all over again (as I always do)!!

Climate scientist admits key climate change metric is just something experts 'chose': 'Symbolic marker' | Blaze Media

Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.What is the background?The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a report in 2018...

www.theblaze.com

As usual, you're not making any sense. Why did you and your crank loser conspiracy blog think the article revealed something bad about climate science? Scientists chose 1.5C as one benchmark to list what bad things would happen at that point. Would you have been happier if they chose 1.6C and then explained how things would be a little worse? Of course choosing 1.5C was arbitrarry. Any choice is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean making a choice is bad.

 

[P@triot]

Of course choosing 1.5C was arbitrarry. Any choice is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean making a choice is bad.

Science isn’t “arbitrary”, princess. Science - real/actual science - is precise. This literally proves that “Global Warming” is a hoax.

Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.

“Not rooted in provable science”. That summarizes the entire “Global Warming” hoax!

 

[P@triot]

Watching this guy work so hard to deny reality is equal parts funny and disturbing:

Scientists chose 1.5C as one benchmark to list what bad things would happen at that point.

Note the propaganda there? The climate scientist quoted in this article did not say “we picked this as a benchmark to list what bad things would happen at that point”. Here is what he actually said, word-for-word:

Jeff Berardelli, a CBS News meteorologist and "climate specialist," admitted this week that a key metric scientists cite to warn about the dangers of climate change is not rooted in provable science.

See they cannot link any “list of what bad things would happen at that point” because they have no provable science of what will occur with a 1.5° change