Toronto Escorts

Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
25,140
3,574
113
Hey Frankie, global warming will go the same way as your RussiaGate investigation, or the same way as your Trump impeachment, or the same way as the ICC boycott of Israel.

In other words, it will all go nowhere!!
Keep drinking that koolaid though, okay??!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,770
17,583
113
Hey Frankie, global warming will go the same way as your RussiaGate investigation, or the same way as your Trump impeachment, or the same way as the ICC boycott of Israel.

In other words, it will all go nowhere!!
Keep drinking that koolaid though, okay??!!
Hilarious, Phil.

And what to you expect to happen with climate change?
Are you like pornaddict, who thinks that we're just starting an ice age?
Or do you back k douglas and his conspiracy that its all the UN?
Or are you more like moviefan and think that there has been no warming and all of science is out to con you?

Hilarious.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,346
113
Room 112
Hilarious, Phil.

And what to you expect to happen with climate change?
Are you like pornaddict, who thinks that we're just starting an ice age?
Or do you back k douglas and his conspiracy that its all the UN?
Or are you more like moviefan and think that there has been no warming and all of science is out to con you?

Hilarious.
Not a conspiracy it's plain as day. You and the other liberal lemmings are choosing ignorance. Without the IPCC this issue would probably not even exist.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,770
17,583
113
Not a conspiracy it's plain as day. You and the other liberal lemmings are choosing ignorance. Without the IPCC this issue would probably not even exist.
Yes, you and Phil make quite an argument for how sane the climate change deniers are.
Of course, pornaddict also helps, not to mention bigsleazy.
Its really quite a team of geniuses and experts, isn't it?

The UN conspiracy theory is one of my favourites, makes the Alex Jones fans look well informed.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,346
113
Room 112
"Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.

.......scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob"
-Klaus Eckart-Puls, Physicist & Meteorologist and former IPCC contributor

"I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.”
-Dr. Christopher Landsea, NOAA research meteorologist, in his letter of resignation from the IPCC

"Atmospheric physics is quite clear that increasing CO2 concentrations increases temperature. The best way to demonstrate this is to model the temperature of the atmosphere with all CO2 removed. It is very cold. Then, increase CO2 by small increments and plot the graph of temperature increase. It is very rapid initially and then flattens out. Doubling CO2 from today’s concentration, holding all other parameters constant, has a “negligible” effect."
-John Bluemle, North Dakota State Climatologist

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another… Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot."
-Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, Institute of Science and Technology Research, Chubu University, Japan

"If you go around the globe, your find no (sea level) rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is not rise, there is no death threat."
-Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University

"In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me. I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, ‘We have got to get rid of the Medieval Warm period.’”
-Dr. David Deming, University of Oklahoma, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Dec. 6, 2006

"It is worth bearing in mind that there is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide was the main cause of recent warming- it’s only an assumption, and the calculations of future temperature rises derive most of their warming from an assumed water vapor feedback for which there is only counter evidence."
-Dr. David Evans, mathematician and engineer, who worked at Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005

"The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. Indeed, the success of scientific alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion (per year) today. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
-Dr. Richard Lindzen, former professor of mathematics, University of Chicago and Harvard University, “Climate of Fear,” April 12, 2006

"The paucity of information in the IPCC reports was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire careers as environmental activists.
(The real problem is that) the Intergovernmental Panel (on Climate Change) is precisely that- it is a panel among governments. It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit, and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments”
-Paul Reiter, Professor of medical entomology, Pasteur Institute in Paris (who resigned from IPCC)

"The full spectrum of spatial and temporal scales exhibited by the climate system will not be resolvable by models for decades, if ever."
-Dr. Paul Williams, University of Readings Center for Global Atmospheric Modeling

"I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain."
-Tim Palmer, leading climate modeler at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

"The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models."
-Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful."
-Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University

"A public relations campaign of staggering proportions is being carried forward to convince us that global warming is man-made and a crisis. The historic evidence, however, shows us two similar warming periods in the recent past: the Medieval Warming (950-1300 AD) and the Roman Warming (200 BC to 600 AD). Ice cores dug up from Greenland and the Antarctic show there have been 600 such cycles over the past one million years- all of them moderate.”
-Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years (2007)

"Sophisticated climate models have been running for twenty years now. It has become evident that these models cannot be made to agree on anything except a possible relation between greenhouse gases and a slight increase in globally averaged temperatures…We should stop our support for the preoccupation with greenhouse gases our politicians indulge in. Global energy policy is their business, not ours. We should not allow politicians to use fake doomsday projections as a cover-up for their real intentions.”
-Dr. H. Tennekes, Professor of Meteorology, “A Personal Call for Modesty, Integrity, and Balance,” Climate Science, 2007

"We’re talking here of mathematical models whose results have consequences costing billions of dollars and involve the responsibility of all the governments of the world. It is necessary to bring these basic themes back to the scientific laboratories where they belong, talking them away from the hands of those who use them to satisfy ambitions that have nothing to do with scientific truth."
-Dr. Antonio Zichichi, professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna.

"(Warming fears are) the worst scientific scandal in history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
-UN IPCC Japanese scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, chemist
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,770
17,583
113
"Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.

.......scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob"
-Klaus Eckart-Puls, Physicist & Meteorologist and former IPCC contributor
Hey Kirk, where did you get those quotes from?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
I never said it was a bad thing....
Then why do you keep arguing that scientists looking at the data and coming to the same conclusion is somehow bad?

I guess it is because you can't argue against the vast majority of work from the scientific community so you play conspiracy theorist and look for excuses to ignore their findings.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
Yet the story you are parroting from denier sites is attacking the measurements that show warming. Hmm.
Actually just about all Scientist agree there has been some warning.
This is to be expected for a planet that has continuously changing climate for 4.5 B years

Funny how you are able to define websites based upon the criteria of whether they agree with your beliefs or not
How in the world can anyone be objective about any issue if they pre-determine the value of information before they read it
Particularly on an extremely complex and technical issue

The use of the word denier should have clued you in that bias and politics have run roughshod over the science in this issue
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
Then why do you keep arguing that scientists looking at the data and coming to the same conclusion is somehow bad?

I guess it is because you can't argue against the vast majority of work from the scientific community so you play conspiracy theorist and look for excuses to ignore their findings.
It is not the vast majority as 30,000 did not come to the same conculsion
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Actually just about all Scientist agree there has been some warning....
So why did you keep attacking the measurements their conclusion is based on? And why do you suddenly accept the scientific consensus on warming?
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,340
5,563
113
Well that's an improvement on the 0.2% who support him on the survey he keeps spamming.
Actually, it is down from 0.4% from the "No Warming" category. At least the 0.2% believe that there is Global Warming, but it has nothing to do with anthropogenic GHG contributions. The 0.4% that do not support any Global Warming of any sort, are in line with the history of our right wingers who have argued like broken records that there is absolutely no "Global Warming / Climate Change over the years and even to this date.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,159
2,151
113
Originally Posted by bver_hunter View Post
...
There are 10 million US Science Graduates, so only 0.3% signed the petition, with no factual basis to back them up!!
Well that's an improvement on the 0.2% who support him on the survey he keeps spamming.
And what was the percentage of scientist who were used in the cook report that started this Vast Majority labelling to begin with
As I recall it was far less than 30,000

So the reality is claiming a consensus either way is problematic
And as pointed out multiple times, scientific hypothesis is not proven nor disproven by survey.
Scientific hypothesis is determined by experimentation. Ask a different scientist
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
...
So the reality is claiming a consensus either way is problematic...
Really? Less than 1% see things one way and the vast majority see things the other. Seems one side is exponentially more problematic than the other.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
You obviously can not produce a coherent argument other than spamming surveys that show only 0.2% support your view.


http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

Summary: In February 2014 I examined surveys of climate scientists and found (as had others) that they showed broad agreement with the IPCC’s headline statement about warming since 1950. However time brings new research, such as a major survey that digs deeper and finds that only a minority of climate scientists agree with the full key statement of AR5 about greenhouse gases — the most recent IPCC report. That’s important news. Also see the important update below.


I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.

Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.

More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Well that's an improvement on the 0.2% who support him on the survey he keeps spamming.






Summary: In February 2014 I examined surveys of climate scientists and found (as had others) that they showed broad agreement with the IPCC’s headline statement about warming since 1950. However time brings new research, such as a major survey that digs deeper and finds that only a minority of climate scientists agree with the full key statement of AR5 about greenhouse gases — the most recent IPCC report. That’s important news. Also see the important update below.


I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen Strengers, Verheegen, and Vringer shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.

Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty.

More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quoted rather a lot of gray literature itself. Donna LaFramboise found 5,587 non peer reviewed articles in AR4.)
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,770
17,583
113
https://b-i.forbesimg.com/peterferrara/files/2013/11/Roy-Spencer-IPCC-Models1.jpg
Back to charts using atmospheric temperatures instead of surface temperatures, and based on using the faulty and old numbers from Roy Spencer?

Sigh.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts