Damn climate change!

[GPIDEAL]

The graph below is misleading.

China has probably greater emissions than Canada, but their larger population growth shows smaller per capita emissions. They have more industry than Canada.

If your live in more than 2,500 sq ft or your car has more than 4 cylinders you don't really believe in climate change….

 

[Moviefan-2]

Thanks for confirming you don`t know what you`re talking about.
You confuse `projections` with `predictions`, then use stale old lobbyist cherry picking, copy and pasting their arguments as if you understood them.

Mattroxx`s post above has a very good list of who is funding your talking points.

I`ll stick with the 97% of the people who know what they are talking about and aren`t paid dissenters.

Anyone still trying to make those arguments in the face of the latest news should be ashamed.

"97%"?? :biggrin1:

It`s funny that a guy who insists on sticking with trash propaganda numbers (for the full debunking, see this thread: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated) would -- in the same post -- accuse me of using "talking points."

 

[groggy]

"97%"?? :biggrin1:

It`s funny that a guy who insists on sticking with trash propaganda numbers (for the full debunking, see this thread: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated) would -- in the same post -- accuse me of using "talking points."

There are multiple studies backing the 97% of climatologists claim.
Its legit.

What answer do you have to the collapse of glaciers in the Antarctic combined with the news that all North American Glaciers are in serious melt?

This Is What a Holy Shit Moment for Global Warming Looks Like

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse

Climate change melting US glaciers at faster rate, study finds

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/06/america-glacier-melt

How much worse does it have to get before you admit you`ve been suckered by ex-tobacco lobbyists?

 

[Moviefan-2]

There are multiple studies backing the 97% of climatologists claim.
Its legit.

Do your homework. This has already been explained to you: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

How much worse does it have to get before you admit you`ve been suckered by ex-tobacco lobbyists?

The predictions and results that I cited were from the IPCC`s reports. You`re claiming the IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists"?

If you say so. :biggrin1:

 

[basketcase]

There are multiple studies backing the 97% of climatologists claim.
Its legit....

Remember that in MF's view, he rejects the 97% because it only included experts in the field (and more importantly because it interferes with his viewpoint - you know something about that right?).


How about this news story from the latest news?

April global temperature tied for highest since 1880, NOAA reports

April was historically hot across the globe, tying with 2010 for the highest average temperature since 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday.

"The globally averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces tied with 2010 as the highest on record for the month," NOAA said in a statement.

The planet last month was 0.77° Celsius (1.39° Fahrenheit) hotter than the 20th century average.

Central Siberia saw temperatures more than 5 Celsius (9 Fahrenheit) above average.

Britain saw its third warmest April since record-keeping began in 1910, and Australia observed its seventh hottest April over the same time span.

Meanwhile, much of the United States and Canada saw cooler than average temperatures for the month.

"This contrast is an example of how a globally-averaged temperature can differ from a single smaller region," NOAA said.

The last time global April temperatures fell below the 20th century average was in 1976, the agency said.
http://phys.org/news/2014-05-april-global-temperature-tied-highest.html

What happened to that 'pause'?


Seems like last November global temperatures reached a 134 year high.
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-world-hottest-november-years.html#nRlv

 

[TESLAMotors]

I was JUST going to post this. Absolutely brilliant, but the creationists are terrified of such things, as are those who love corporations [guys like onthebottom].

 

[Moviefan-2]

Remember that in MF's view, he rejects the 97% because it only included experts in the field (and more importantly because it interferes with his viewpoint - you know something about that right?).

The freelance cartoonist who put together the most recent version of the bogus number (and has never worked one day of his life as a professional scientist) is an "expert"?

That's almost as funny as the suggestion the IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists."

Apart from the fact it's total B.S., the reason I reject the bogus propaganda number is because I prefer empirical evidence. As I've told you before, phony claims of a "consensus" are not a substitute for evidence.

 

[groggy]

Do your homework. This has already been explained to you:

You link to an entire thread?
Do your homework, read the entire thread again.
Then, if you understand it this time, you'll see that you were shown to be wrong.

The predictions and results that I cited were from the IPCC's reports. You're claiming the IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists"?

If you say so. :biggrin1:

The word is 'projections'.
If you're going to use IPCC works then you can't pretend they are 'predictions' when they state they are 'projections'.
Then, you need read that thread again to understand that their projections are long term projections, that the cherry picked (and shown to be false by basketcase above) claims you make are all based on picking short term, cherry picked dates.
Do you remember when I cherry picked dates back that showed even higher global surface temperature changes using the same time references your ex-tobacco lobbyists used?
After that you stopped using the cherry picking argument for more then a week, before your short term memory losses kicked in again.

And you're still refusing to respond to the Antarctic and North American (really world wide) glacial melt we're experiencing right now.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And you`re still refusing to respond to the Antarctic and North American (really world wide) glacial melt we`re experiencing right now.

Why would I waste my time?

You`re still citing the bullshit "consensus" number even though I spent a great deal of time and energy proving to you -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- that it`s total crap.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

Your talking points are never going to change and I have better ways to spend my time.

 

[groggy]

The freelance cartoonist who put together the most recent version of the bogus number (and has never worked one day of his life as a professional scientist) is an "expert"?

That's almost as funny as the suggestion the IPCC is run by "ex-tobacco lobbyists."

Apart from the fact it's total B.S., the reason I reject the bogus propaganda number is because I prefer empirical evidence. As I've told you before, phony claims of a "consensus" are not a substitute for evidence.

Good thing that the consensus also represents all the present evidence as well.
Evidence like:
Antarctic glacial melts resulting in an eventual 10 ft ocean rise
World wide glacial melts
Warmest April since 1880
2013 - 4th warmest year on record
2012 - 9th warmest year on record
Arctic sea ice at 5th lowest level on record

That's evidence.
What have you got?

 

[groggy]

Why would I waste my time?

You're still citing the bullshit "consensus" number even though I spent a great deal of time and energy proving to you -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- that it's total crap.

That number is supported by Nasa.
Are you going to accuse Nasa of propaganda?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Don't forget to accuse each and every one of those scientific associations of propaganda as well.
And then tell us how your oil money lobbyists are just like Galileo, except that they don't have a theory and are paid to put out opinions, not do research.

 

[Moviefan-2]

What have you got?

Do your homework. That has been asked (repeatedly) and answered: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

The answers included a deconstruction -- in great detail -- of the bogus "consensus" claims.

That previous thread ran for 1 1/2 months and I don`t see any evidence that anyone`s position changed. I can`t see any reason to go through it all again.

 

[groggy]

Do your homework..

So you are calling Nasa liars and propagandists.
Based of your 'math' skills.

Thanks for making that clear.

 

[bishop]

The problem is insurmountable. It costs you $80 to fill up your car, and you can probably get 600km out of that, how long would it take you to walk 600km? Maybe a month. How long would it take you to walk 600km while pushing 2000 lbs of dead weight, maybe a year. $80 buys you a year's worth of work, that is a bloody good deal, such a good deal that we will hold onto it until our dying breath.

What we need to do, and I am not joking, is to dig up the graves of dead scientists like Tesla, Dirac, Einstien, etc..., clone an army of them and put them to work on this problem.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So you are calling Nasa liars and propagandists.
Based of your `math` skills.

Thanks for making that clear.

Do your homework. This has already been explained to you: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

Actually, here`s what I would like to know:

Since you`re so concerned about the future of the planet and your own energy consumption, why do you spend so much time on TERB?

 

[groggy]

Do your homework.

Answer the question.

Are you calling Nasa liars and propagandists?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Answer the question.

I did: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?471227-Global-Warming-Fact-or-grossly-exaggerated

I`m more interested in hearing the answer to my question:

Since you`re so concerned about the future of the planet and your own energy consumption, why do you spend so much time on TERB?

 

[groggy]

I did:

Right, so you call NASA liars.
Do you really think you are that much smarter then NASA?
Or do you think your ex-tobacco lobbyists are smarter then NASA?

This is an important question, it should clear up the continual dunning kruger effect questions.

And I have to assume that you are calling every other scientific association on that page liars as well, correct?
That would mean you are pretty much calling all scientists liars, not just the 97% of climatologists.

I'm more interested in hearing the answer to my question:

Since you're so concerned about the future of the planet and your own energy consumption, why do you spend so much time on TERB?

Because running my treadmill powered laptop keeps me in shape for the coming apocalypse.
And there are pictures of naked girls here sometimes.

 

[onthebottom]

The graph below is misleading.

China has probably greater emissions than Canada, but their larger population growth shows smaller per capita emissions. They have more industry than Canada.

It would be misleading if the title didn't include per capita.....

 

[Insidious Von]

The Oil Sands contribution to climate change is also misleading. While it does play a part, it's miniscule compared to the megatons of coal the PRC and India are burning to drive their economies. Their acid rain problem must be dreadful! Australia is getting rich by selling them coal - they probably consider the severe droughts, flash floods and runaway forest fires they're enduring a good trade off.