The unsustainability of "green" energy

[westwall]

Sooo. When NOAA said that the global temp in 1998 was 62 degrees. And now they tell us that it is 58 and a new record....what does that mean to you?

It means you're stooping to a favorite type of denier dishonesty, baseline fraud.

If you want to claim you're not deliberately peddling a fraud, you should explain why you're pretending that measurements from two different baselines are using the same baseline.

Are you claiming that NOAA didn't make that declaration?

 

[P@triot]

I'm pretty certain that will be the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today.

I'm pretty sure that's what every progressive says when they can't dispute the facts.

Learn about the rate of formation of fossil fuels. Yes, earth is "creating" them, but on a scale of millions of years. Hence, it's dumb to declare earth keeps creating vast new quantities of htem right now.

Nobody said that the earth was producing "vast new quantities". But it's fall down hilarious that you thought aliens brought it. You had no idea that the earth creates it. And as such, it must be mined.

Also learn where fossil fuels are found. The answer is "sedimentary formations". That is, not near volcanoes.

Oil is formed in "sedimentary formations" you dumb-ass. Not natural gas.

 

[P@triot]

Sooo. When NOAA said that the global temp in 1998 was 62 degrees. And now they tell us that it is 58 and a new record....what does that mean to you?

It means you're stooping to a favorite type of denier dishonesty, baseline fraud.

If you want to claim you're not deliberately peddling a fraud, you should explain why you're pretending that measurements from two different baselines are using the same baseline.

Watching you deny science is hilarious. You can't bring yourself to accept that your precious little progressive ideology is a farce.

 

[hauke]

yes earth makes oil.
it just takes 360 million years

 

[P@triot]

yes earth makes oil.
it just takes 360 million years

Yeah....and we've only been mining it for 120 years. Ask an adult to help you with the math.

 

[mamooth]

Oil is formed in "sedimentary formations" you dumb-ass. Not natural gas.

This should be fun.

Dr. Science, do tell us in what types of rock natural gas is found.

Back up your work. If you want to claim natural gas is usually found near volcanoes in igneous formations, explain how it got there, and provide references.

You're just a clown now, performing for our amusement. In case you didn't understand that, I just told you.

 

[mamooth]

Are you claiming that NOAA didn't make that declaration?

You're the one claiming that 62.3 is not greater than 62, so you're the one who needs to explain your very peculiar reasoning. I'm the one pointing out that, just as NASA did, you have to take into the difference in baselines of 4.3F. 58.0 + 4.3 = 62.3, which is greater than 62.0. Hence, warming.

For those unfamiliar with the case ...

In 1997, NOAA was using one way of processing of station data to get a global temperature average. After the paper (Jones et al. 1999) demonstrated a better method, they switched to a that method, one that put more weighting on colder areas. Hence, the calculated "average global temperature" went down, by about 4.3F. Different baselines. (Which also destroys the denier conspiracy theory that scientists were inflating temperatures, given that they deflated the temperatures.)

See? Right in black and white here. "Please note The estimate for the baseline global temperature use in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline (Jones et al. 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analysis. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time."

Westwall is taking the more modern temperatures from the colder baseline, comparing them to older temperatures from the warmer baseline, and claiming it proves the past was warmer. Other denier propagandists have stopped using that sleaze tactic, because it instantly reveals how the person using it is peddling a very obvious fraud.

 

[westwall]

Are you claiming that NOAA didn't make that declaration?

You're the one claiming that 62.3 is not greater than 62, so you're the one who needs to explain your very peculiar reasoning. I'm the one pointing out that, just as NASA did, you have to take into the difference in baselines of 4.3F. 58.0 + 4.3 = 62.3, which is greater than 62.0. Hence, warming.

For those unfamiliar with the case ...

In 1997, NOAA was using one way of processing of station data to get a global temperature average. After the paper (Jones et al. 1999) demonstrated a better method, they switched to a that method, one that put more weighting on colder areas. Hence, the calculated "average global temperature" went down, by about 4.3F. Different baselines. (Which also destroys the denier conspiracy theory that scientists were inflating temperatures, given that they deflated the temperatures.)

See? Right in black and white here. "Please note The estimate for the baseline global temperature use in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline (Jones et al. 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analysis. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time."

Westwall is taking the more modern temperatures from the colder baseline, comparing them to older temperatures from the warmer baseline, and claiming it proves the past was warmer. Other denier propagandists have stopped using that sleaze tactic, because it instantly reveals how the person using it is peddling a very obvious fraud.

Wow. Do you really think you can convince people of your lies? My question to you was "which is greater, 58 degrees or 62 degrees? NOAA proclaimed 1998 as the warmest ever at 62 degrees. And then, just last year they proclaimed 2015 as the warmest ever at 58 degrees. So....once again little dancer around the facts....which is greater....58 or 62?

 

[westwall]

yes earth makes oil.
it just takes 360 million years

So, as the Earth is over 4 billion years the logical assumption is that oil is therefore being CONTINUOUSLY produced. Is that what you are saying?

 

[P@triot]

Oil is formed in "sedimentary formations" you dumb-ass. Not natural gas.

This should be fun.

Dr. Science, do tell us in what types of rock natural gas is found.

Back up your work. If you want to claim natural gas is usually found near volcanoes in igneous formations, explain how it got there, and provide references.

You're just a clown now, performing for our amusement. In case you didn't understand that, I just told you.

I never said it was found near volcanos. You're saying that because you embarrassed that you didn't know that the earth produces fossil fuels. You thought it was brought here by aliens and about to run out.

 

[mamooth]

Wow. Do you really think you can convince people of your lies? My question to you was "which is greater, 58 degrees or 62 degrees?

62, obviously.

Now that I've directly answered your dishonest evasive question, you need to explain yourself. Why are you comparing calculated averages from two different baselines? Why are you lying your ass off and pretending that NOAA is doing it, when they've flat out stated not to do it?

NOAA proclaimed 1998 as the warmest ever at 62 degrees. And then, just last year they proclaimed 2015 as the warmest ever at 58 degrees. So....once again little dancer around the facts....which is greater....58 or 62?

So, after being called out on your deliberate fraud of baseline fudging, you're simply not addressing the issue of being busted at all. You're just repeating the same fraud at a higher volume.

Maybe you're not the single most dishonest person I've ever encountered on the internet, but you're in the top ten.

 

[mamooth]

I never said it was found near volcanos. You're saying that because you embarrassed that you didn't know that the earth produces fossil fuels. You thought it was brought here by aliens and about to run out.

You're just making nonsense up now. As a buffoon, you had some comedic value. As a simple liar, you're boring. Bye-bye.

 

[westwall]

Wow. Do you really think you can convince people of your lies? My question to you was "which is greater, 58 degrees or 62 degrees?

62, obviously.

Now that I've directly answered your dishonest evasive question, you need to explain yourself. Why are you comparing calculated averages from two different baselines? Why are you lying your ass off and pretending that NOAA is doing it, when they've flat out stated not to do it?

NOAA proclaimed 1998 as the warmest ever at 62 degrees. And then, just last year they proclaimed 2015 as the warmest ever at 58 degrees. So....once again little dancer around the facts....which is greater....58 or 62?

So, after being called out on your deliberate fraud of baseline fudging, you're simply not addressing the issue of being busted at all. You're just repeating the same fraud at a higher volume.

Maybe you're not the single most dishonest person I've ever encountered on the internet, but you're in the top ten.

How is my question "dishonest" and "deceptive"? If, as NOAA claimed way back in 1998 that the global temp was 62 degrees, then their claim last year that 58 degrees is the highest global temp recorded is a ....now....what is that word again? You know...you do it all of the time....so...what is that word again.....????? Oh yeah... It is a LIE.

 

[P@triot]

I never said it was found near volcanos. You're saying that because you embarrassed that you didn't know that the earth produces fossil fuels. You thought it was brought here by aliens and about to run out.

You're just making nonsense up now. As a buffoon, you had some comedic value. As a simple liar, you're boring. Bye-bye.

Boom! The lying progressive gets knocked out cold and throws the towel in the ring! Thank you!!!

 

[mamooth]

How is my question "dishonest" and "deceptive"?

I answered that in detail in post #467.

Naturally, you refused to address it in any way, because you couldn't.

You're running now, and everyone sees it. My job here of revealing your fraud is done.

 

[westwall]

How is my question "dishonest" and "deceptive"?

I answered that in detail in post #467.

Naturally, you refused to address it in any way, because you couldn't.

You're running now, and everyone sees it. My job here of revealing your fraud is done.

So... What you're saying is the "scientists" have run all of those historical temps through one of their special programs that somehow alters the data record in their favor. Every single time. Is that what you're saying?

Somehow, thermometers were faulty back then? ALL of them? EVERY thermometer in the WHOLE WORLD? Is that what you are claiming?

 

[P@triot]

How is my question "dishonest" and "deceptive"?

I answered that in detail in post #467.

Naturally, you refused to address it in any way, because you couldn't.

You're running now, and everyone sees it. My job here of revealing your fraud is done.

So... What you're saying is the "scientists" have run all of those historical temps through one of their special programs that somehow alters the data record in their favor. Every single time. Is that what you're saying?

Somehow, thermometers were faulty back then? ALL of them? EVERY thermometer in the WHOLE WORLD? Is that what you are claiming?

It has to be westwall. After all...it doesn't support her bizarre progressive ideology so it can't possibly be correct...

 

[mamooth]

So... What you're saying is the "scientists" have run all of those historical temps through one of their special programs that somehow alters the data record in their favor. Every single time. Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that after being busted for fraud, you're now trying to cover your retreat by tossing out cult conspiracy theories.

Let me help you out. You know how you can tell what I'm saying? I say it.

Somehow, thermometers were faulty back then? ALL of them? EVERY thermometer in the WHOLE WORLD? Is that what you are claiming?

If you could address what I'm actually saying, you wouldn't have to always invoke the loopy conspiracy theories about what I'm supposedly saying.

 

[westwall]

So... What you're saying is the "scientists" have run all of those historical temps through one of their special programs that somehow alters the data record in their favor. Every single time. Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that after being busted for fraud, you're now trying to cover your retreat by tossing out pathologically dishonest cult conspiracy theories.

Let me help you out. You know how you can tell what I'm saying? I say it.

Somehow, thermometers were faulty back then? ALL of them? EVERY thermometer in the WHOLE WORLD? Is that what you are claiming?

If you could address what I'm actually saying, you wouldn't have to always make up loopy conspiracy theories about what I'm supposedly saying.

How am I the one being "busted for fraud" when I have no control over the fraudulent numbers that are being published? The ONLY people who can be accused of fraud are your hero's. You know, the ones who actually CONTROL which numbers are released to the public. You know mammy, when you go dumb, you go all the way.

 

[P@triot]

Here is the bottom line mamooth - "Global Warming" has been proven to be a scam. Unequivocally, indisputably proven. I'm sorry if that shakes your precious little progressive foundation and that the realization that your progressive leaders have spent over a century lying to you is more than your fragile little psyche can handle, but it doesn't change the truth.

• Not one but two rounds of scientists caught discussing how they falsify their data for progressives

• Rebranding it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

• Predicting the polar ice-cap would be completely melted by 2014 when it actually expanded 60% (over 900,000 sq miles)

• Al Gore being forced to provide an astounding 88 pages of corrections to his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" in an England court as part of a law suit

Only a progressive would continue to believe something which is false in the face of such overwhelming evidence.