the worlds smartest man disagrees with global warming

[Bud Plug]

I couldn't get past this claim.

In order to make a claim this crazy you need to prove:
1) The Canadian government, including denier Stephen Harper's government, was actively funding scientific research based on the predetermined findings of research.
2) The US government funds research the same way, by posting the results they want and then funding those researchers who would come up with those results regardless of the evidence.
3) That the over 100 other countries that fund research cited by the IPCC also funds research this way.
4) Why over 100 countries governments over the last 30 years all want to prove that anthropogenic climate change is happening

When you start putting it all together, all the countries and all the different governments each country had, it really makes your claim look like wingnut crazy, conspiracy theory.
It really makes the 9/11 truther's look sane.

You're a frequent poster on this topic, but you employ only one argument technique - demanding that the person holding an opposite view assemble a great deal of information that is either obvious in the first place, or that you could assemble yourself. Unfortunately, that's a very ineffective style of argument here on the internet, because, Frankly (pun intended), no one who has anything else going on in their lives is going to think it's worthwhile to do that just to have a debate over the internet with you.

If you want to believe what I've said about public funding (despite the existence of a Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, for goodness sakes) is all conspiracy theory, you're welcome to do so. Me, I'll be living in the real world.

 

[Frankfooter]

You're a frequent poster on this topic, but you employ only one argument technique - demanding that the person holding an opposite view assemble a great deal of information that is either obvious in the first place, or that you could assemble yourself. Unfortunately, that's a very ineffective style of argument here on the internet, because, Frankly (pun intended), no one who has anything else going on in their lives is going to think it's worthwhile to do that just to have a debate over the internet with you.

If you want to believe what I've said about public funding (despite the existence of a Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, for goodness sakes) is all conspiracy theory, you're welcome to do so. Me, I'll be living in the real world.

I take that you can't defend your views.
Typical.

 

[lucky_blue]

You're a frequent poster on this topic, but you employ only one argument technique - demanding that the person holding an opposite view assemble a great deal of information that is either obvious in the first place, or that you could assemble yourself. Unfortunately, that's a very ineffective style of argument here on the internet, because, Frankly (pun intended), no one who has anything else going on in their lives is going to think it's worthwhile to do that just to have a debate over the internet with you.

If you want to believe what I've said about public funding (despite the existence of a Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, for goodness sakes) is all conspiracy theory, you're welcome to do so. Me, I'll be living in the real world.

The joke is that I don't hold an opposite view. I believe in climate change, I believe that we have warmed 0.5 - 1 degree over the past 100 years.

What I don't know is how much of the climate change is due to human activity. Franky seems to be on the delusional side regarding this issue. I guess he would be one of those who would like to see me in jail for not dropping to my knees for his eco co religionists.


http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...e-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/

http://humanevents.com/2014/05/16/the-new-climategate-scandal/

 

[lucky_blue]

 

[lucky_blue]

 

[Titalian]

Very simple, he sold himself, his most important motivation.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You sound quite a bit like moviefan.
Make some ridiculous accusation and then when its been shown to be nonsense you just move on to a new ridiculous claim.

Is that so?

Let's review some of Franky's greatest hits from the last two months of 2015:

- Nov. 10 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

- Nov. 21 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

Nov. 27 -- This is still one of my favourites. He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, after it was explained to him that the graph shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, he changed his mind and posted on Dec. 4 that it is actually "not an IPCC projection" but an updated version of the CMIP5 model runs: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739. He continued that day by saying the IPCC doesn't use the CMIP5 runs for its projections: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739. In fact, the IPCC clearly stated in its AR5 report from 2013 that its projections were based on the CMIP5 run.

The abridged version: Franky ran away from his own graph after he learned what it actually shows.

- Nov. 29 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Actually, they do.

- Dec. 1 -- Another classic. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

- Dec. 5 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886. In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

Frankfooter is truly the king of all bullshit.

 

[FAST]

What frankie doesn't understand, when he keeps on bringing up the same old BS time and time again about governments funding "climate change agencies/clubs".

And stating over and over again about how 100's of "scientists" in 100's of countries all funded by governments all agree with each other,...well no shit,...this is really simple logic here.
NONE of these clubs are going to rock the boat,...grow up people.
Does anybody actually believe,... that just because the SAME clubs in all these countries agree,...mean they can't be wrong,...they all read from the same "bible",...does anybody believe the minister of "climate change" in all these countries,...who was previously the minister immigration is going to question these clubs,...give me a fricken break people,...

There is NO mechanism in place to question these clubs,...none,...which is really fricken ridiculous,...!!!

10,000 "scientists" all doing the same thing,...think about this people,...this is ludicrous,...its simply a make work scheme perpetuated by the UNEMPLOYABLE,...nothing more.

Call this conspiracy,...???

Are unions a conspiracy,...are religions a conspiracy,...by assigning a meaningless descriptor to a the subject,...is simply a cop out.

A better word would be,...no "credibility".

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Is that so?

Let's review some of Franky's greatest hits from the last two months of 2015:

Hey loser, are you here to infect us with more denier math?
Lets just look at the best of your ridiculous denier claims.

- Nov. 21 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

Dude, 2015 was the hottest year on record, and as for monthly records, here is what NOAA says:

With the contribution of such record warmth at year's end and with 10 months of the year record warm for their respective months, including the last 8

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

(NOAA used as reference since there was never a claim of 'adjustment' or 'enron style accounting' or fraud, as moviefan accused NASA of)

Not only are you out of your tree, but you are out of your tree wrong 10 times in one claim! 10 months set monthly high records in 2015! 10 errors in one statement, nice new record, idiot.


I'd go on, but what's the point.
You are still so wacko that you're still claiming climate change is 'paused' even after 15 of the last 16 years have been reported as the warmest years on record.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Too funny. We'll add to the list the fact that Franky now doesn't know the difference between NASA and NOAA.

Here's the NASA data set for 2015 prior to the adjustment, which goes to the end of May: bit.ly/1O6YPsX

There isn't a single month in 2015 on that table that is a record breaker.

Go ahead, Franky: Pick a month from January to May 2015, and we'll see how that month compares with the past on the pre-adjusted data set. :thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

(NOAA used as reference since there was never a claim of 'adjustment' or 'enron style accounting' or fraud, as moviefan accused NASA of)

The sea surface "adjustments" used by both were actually made by NOAA.

The accusations apply to both, and I actually did apply them to both organizations. Your friend Basketcase extrapolated from that and concluded I was making the accusations about every scientist on the planet. :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

The sea surface "adjustments" used by both were actually made by NOAA.

The accusations apply to both, and I actually did apply them to both organizations. Your friend Basketcase extrapolated from that and concluded I was making the accusations about every scientist on the planet. :biggrin1:

Right, one your more ridiculous claims:

Sorry, but Enron-style accounting doesn't qualify as an actual temperature increase.

You accused NASA of fraud, but then later called it a 'metaphor'.
What a clown.

Kind of like these claims:

Furthermore, the period from 1940 to the late 1970s shows there was a slight cooling in the Earth's temperature

2014 was no warmer than 2005

The graph does not show any statistically significant increase for the past 15 years. Indeed, NASA -- which produced the graph -- describes that period as "flattening."

The fact that most of the warmest temperatures (according to NASA and NOAA) have been in this century merely reflect the fact that the plateau was reached at about the turn of the century.

-- Misleading statements about 14 of the 15 years since the turn of the century being the warmest on record. While it may be true that temperatures in the 21st century are consistent with the plateau at the end of the 20th century, it isn't evidence of increasing warming.

Still stand by all those claims, buddy?

 

[Moviefan-2]

LOL.

Now that he's been proven wrong yet again, Frankfooter wants to change the subject.

There wasn't a single month in NASA's pre-adjusted data for 2015 (which runs from January to May) that was a record breaker. Not a single one.

Yesterday, Frankfooter called that a "ridiculous denier claim."

I repeat my challenge to Frankfooter: Pick a month from January to May 2015 and we'll see how that month compares with the past on the pre-adjusted data set.

bit.ly/1O6YPsX

 

[Moviefan-2]

You accused NASA of fraud, but then later called it a 'metaphor'.

Actually, I called the Enron comparison a metaphor. The part about the NOAA and NASA cooking the books is an inconvenient truth.

Sweetheart, get me rewrite...

 

[basketcase]

Actually, I called the Enron comparison a metaphor. The part about the NOAA and NASA cooking the books is an inconvenient truth.
...

Extremely sad that your only excuse is that scientists are lying.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, I called the Enron comparison a metaphor. The part about the NOAA and NASA cooking the books is an inconvenient truth.

You really are quite pathetic.
You accused NASA and NOAA of fraud, or 'enron style cooking of the books' and then tried to call that accusation a 'metaphor' when you were called out on it.
Is your understanding of the word 'metaphor' as poor as your understanding of the science of climatology?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Hmm. I see that Frankfooter has run away from his statement about my "ridiculous denier claim" about the pre-adjusted data.

Let's review what I posted, which came from Frankfooter's greatest global-warming hits from November and December of last year.

- Nov. 21 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

Once again, he knows that I was right. That's why he's now evading the point.

 

[descartes]

He's not the world smartest man.. I bet you he couldn't name two singles by Drake.

You should really take this issue more seriously. Also, I own one of his vacuums. Highly recommended.

 

[lucky_blue]

You should really take this issue more seriously. Also, I own one of his vacuums. Highly recommended.

very strong vacuum power I hear - be careful lol

 

[Frankfooter]

- Nov. 21 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data (which ran to the end of May) showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467. He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

NOAA claims that 10 of 12 months of 2015 were record months.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513
Moviefan manages to be wrong 10 times in one claim.


The odds that 14 of the 16 warmest years would happen 'naturally' as moviefan likes to claim are now listed as 1 in 300,000.
http://www.livescience.com/53468-how-likely-is-global-warm-streak.html
That is, the chance that moviefan's claims are right are now 1 in 300,000.

Loser.