The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[jc456]

God are you stupid.

yet you support a sixteen year old child for proof of this nonsense. I laugh at your stupid.

 

[ding]

No, they didn't. That's just a story you made up. That's why you can't post those supposed emails, even after I ask for them over and over.

I don't think you're deliberately lying here. You're just a piss-chugging cult imbecile. The cult trickled a certain lie down your eager thirsty throat, and then told you to regurgitate it. In your little fascist cult mind, the cult is infallible, so you instantly BELIEVED and did as the cult ordered.

Now, any of you brainless cult losers can demonstrate that you're not brainless cult losers by, you know, posting the actual emails. Full emails, full conversation context. But we all know that's not going to happen. You didn't do it ten years ago, you won't do it now. None of you have the guts or brains to admit that your cult just faked everything.

I don’t need emails. I just need to use ice core data to show their temperature reconstructions are bullshit.

 

[mamooth]

Lgrooming innocent children

The Nazis also told stories about how the Jews/liberals were attacking children. It's a standard tactic of fascist filth.

Serious question -- is there any way at all in which your positions differ from those of the Nazis? Because I can't see any.

 

[jc456]

Because they were NOT discussing how they falsify their data.

it's exactly what they wrote. you should go talk to them cause you're saying you know more than them.

 

[mamooth]

I don’t need emails. I just need to use ice core data to show their temperature reconstructions are bullshit.

You mean the ice core data that says Greenland is seeing record high temperatures?

Latest ice core analysis shows sharp warming spike in Greenland

New ice core data shows Greenland is the warmest it's been in more than 1,000 years. Until Wednesday's study, scientists didn't have recent ice core data. The last ice core was from 1995.

www.pbs.org

You know what to do now. Your usual thing. The hard data flatly contradicts your fantasies, so you have to pretend the data doesn't exist, or declare that because the data disagrees with your fantasies, it must all be faked.

 

[ding]

You mean the ice core data that says Greenland is seeing record high temperatures?

Latest ice core analysis shows sharp warming spike in Greenland

New ice core data shows Greenland is the warmest it's been in more than 1,000 years. Until Wednesday's study, scientists didn't have recent ice core data. The last ice core was from 1995.

www.pbs.org

You know what to do now. Your usual thing. The hard data flatly contradicts your fantasies, so you have to pretend the data doesn't exist, or declare that because the data disagrees with your fantasies, it must all be faked.

The same ice core data that shows 8,500 of the past 10,000 years was warmer than today which global temperature reconstructions don’t show.

 

[mamooth]

The same ice core data that shows 8,500 of the past 10,000 years was warmer than today which global temperature reconstructions don’t show.

So your base argument is an idiot claim that ice core temps from one spot represent global temps.

And it's an implied claim that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate now.

So, just two massive stupid logical fallacies on your part.

 

[P@triot]

No, they didn't.

Dude…the emails are real no matter how many times you deny them.

This is just like your hilarious “gender” bullshit. A man is still really a man, no matter how many times you call him a “woman”

 

[P@triot]

That's why you can't post those supposed emails, even after I ask for them over and over.

They’ve been posted hundreds of times right here on USMB. Covered hundreds of times in the media. And posted thousands more times across the internet.

You’ve seen them. I know you’ve seen them because I’ve seen you respond to them. And like everything else, you just ignore reality and deny them. Here, will do it again so everyone can laugh at you. Here is the actual email word-for-word:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Now, I get it. You’re humiliated that you were so easy for the left to dupe, so now you’re going to lose your shit (again), deny what you just read (again), and then do your bizarre (and ultra gross) rant about how you love “chugging piss”.

It’s the same old song and dance with you, and the entire board is tired of it.

 

[P@triot]

None of you have the guts or brains to admit that your cult just faked everything.

The emails are real. The only thing “fake” is your bizarre attempt to alter reality

 

[P@triot]

That's why you can't post those supposed emails, even after I ask for them over and over.

I don’t blame you for being irate. I would be too if I allowed myself to be so easily duped

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. - IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth

 

[P@triot]

So, just two massive stupid logical fallacies on your part.

You want to talk “fallacies”? The best part about this, is that you actually believed that shit

Even propaganda-machine PolitiFact cannot deny that Democrat Gore said the polar ice-cap would be completely gone by 2014.

Gore quote on an 'ice-free' Arctic is mostly right

Former Vice President Al Gore has been a vocal advocate for policies to reduce global warming, dedicating much of his po

www.politifact.com

 

[ding]

So your base argument is an idiot claim that ice core temps from one spot represent global temps.

And it's an implied claim that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate now.

So, just two massive stupid logical fallacies on your part.

Actually six ice cores from the region most affected by climate changes. If those cores showed warmer temps relative to today then temps were warmer everywhere relative to today.

 

[ding]

So your base argument is an idiot claim that ice core temps from one spot represent global temps.

And it's an implied claim that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate now.

So, just two massive stupid logical fallacies on your part.

But if you want to discuss logical fallacies let’s discuss how atmospheric CO2 of 600 to 1000 ppm and its supposed positive feedback led to a 50 million year decline in temperature. Not possible. Water vapor feedback is net negative. There’s no other possible explanation for a 50 million year cooling trend.

 

[ding]

 

[ding]

And it's an implied claim that since climate changed naturally in the past, humans can't change climate now.

Actually that’s a different claim. Without feedback the GHG effect of CO2 doesn’t cause climate changes. They need to pile on feedback for that. Their only basis for a net positive feedback is a computer model. Unfortunately actual climate data doesn’t support a net positive feedback. Actual climate data supports a net negative feedback.

 

[mamooth]

They need to pile on feedback for that.

Why would you think there's not feedback? More CO2 means warmer temps. That means more water vapor in the air, nother greenhouse gas. Feedback. It means the warmer oceans release more CO2. Feedback.

Their only basis for a net positive feedback is a computer model.

No, basic physics is the reason. Actual physical measurements are the reasons.

But if you want to discuss logical fallacies let’s discuss how atmospheric CO2 of 600 to 1000 ppm and its supposed positive feedback led to a 50 million year decline in temperature. Not possible.

Your failure there is assuming that positive feedback has to go on forever. Since nobody but you thinks that, it's only your problem.

Actually six ice cores from the region most affected by climate changes.

All from Greenland, so the point stands. You're cherrypicking one spot as representative of global temperature. And even that one spot contradicts your ramblings.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would you think there's not feedback? More CO2 means warmer temps. That means more water vapor in the air, nother greenhouse gas. Feedback. It means the warmer oceans release more CO2. Feedback.


No, basic physics is the reason. Actual physical measurements are the reasons.


Your failure there is assuming that positive feedback has to go on forever. Since nobody but you thinks that, it's only your problem.



All from Greenland, so the point stands. You're cherrypicking one spot as representative of global temperature. And even that one spot contradicts your ramblings.

Why would you think there's not feedback? More CO2 means warmer temps. That means more water vapor in the air, nother greenhouse gas. Feedback.

More clouds. More sunlight reflected back to space.

 

[ding]

Why would you think there's not feedback? More CO2 means warmer temps. That means more water vapor in the air, nother greenhouse gas. Feedback. It means the warmer oceans release more CO2. Feedback.


No, basic physics is the reason. Actual physical measurements are the reasons.


Your failure there is assuming that positive feedback has to go on forever. Since nobody but you thinks that, it's only your problem.



All from Greenland, so the point stands. You're cherrypicking one spot as representative of global temperature. And even that one spot contradicts your ramblings.

There is feedback. It’s net negative. That’s why the planet cooled for 50 million years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm. According to the models the IPCC relies upon that wouldn’t have happened.

 

[ding]

Your failure there is assuming that positive feedback has to go on forever. Since nobody but you thinks that, it's only your problem.

The laws of nature don’t change. If increased CO2 causes net positive feedback which is 2 to 3 times the GHG effect of CO2 at 420 ppm then it’s not going to get smaller or reverse it’s sign at 600 ppm.