Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[basketcase]

Cause your scientists (computer simulator technicians really) are scared, ...

Thank you for admitting you are a conspiracy theorist with little interest in science.

 

[Frankfooter]

Two things:

1) I wasn't stating my views. I was summarizing what Frankfooter had posted.

2) I said the predictions were made "from" Mann's graph, not "on" it (and, in fact, included a link that clearly showed the graph clearly went to the year 2000).

Still lying your face off, weasel.

I never said that Mann's graph had "predictions" on it.

Liar.

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "fits" the predictions from Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

All of your attacks on me are really this stupid if you look closely.
You use the troll tactic of copying and pasting, and each time you are challenged you just move on to a different topic.

You are a lying troll.

 

[Frankfooter]

Again with your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

Over 3500 "climate scientists",...what ever the hell they are,...that alone should tell you that something is very wrong with that picture,...frankie,...THREE THOUSAND + CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,...holy shit.

Talk about lunacy,...best example yet.


FAST

Do you have a point hidden in this incomprehensible nonsense?

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's an actual study from someone who bothered to measure how much CO2 degasses from volcanoes.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GL019480/full

Hey nutz, I'm gonna have to post the bloomberg link again.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Just cause it shows that the IPCC is aware of CO2 from volcanoes.
Scroll down to see how big an effect it has.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Still lying your face off, weasel.



Liar.



All of your attacks on me are really this stupid if you look closely.
You use the troll tactic of copying and pasting, and each time you are challenged you just move on to a different topic.

You are a lying troll.

What a bullshitter. You altered my quote to completely change the meaning and then call me a liar. :frusty:

More significantly -- as predicted, no explanation of what the basis was for the "still fits" idiocy.

All of the greatest hits -- including the Mann one -- are 100% legit and backed by the original source.

 

[eznutz]

Hey nutz, I'm gonna have to post the bloomberg link again.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Just cause it shows that the IPCC is aware of CO2 from volcanoes.
Scroll down to see how big an effect it has.

IPCC uses an estimate, not a measurement. Come back when you have some real numbers.
And try and explain why the IPCC avoids using volcanoes and CO2 in the same sentence in AR5.

 

[Frankfooter]

What a bullshitter. You altered my quote to completely change the meaning and then call me a liar. :frusty:

More significantly -- as predicted, no explanation of what the basis was for the "still fits" idiocy.

All of the greatest hits -- including the Mann one -- are 100% legit and backed by the original source.

This is amusing.
The quotes I'm putting here are from you, they are your words, and click on the link in the top of the quote it goes straight back to the post where you made them.


These are your words, the words of a liar, who is now trying to go so far and lie about stating them ever.
tsk, tsk, tsk.
You're just digging a deeper hole every day.

I never said that Mann's graph had "predictions" on it.

One more lie to cover a bullshit accusation, tsk tsk tsk.

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "fits" the predictions from Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

Click on the link embedded in that post after your name and it goes straight to the post where you made that statement.

Troll, you're lying about not making that statement.
You're lying that you never stated Michael Mann's hockey stick chart had 'predictions' coming from it.

This is your latest and 'greatest hits' attack on me.
What a clown you are.

 

[Frankfooter]

IPCC uses an estimate, not a measurement. Come back when you have some real numbers.
And try and explain why the IPCC avoids using volcanoes and CO2 in the same sentence in AR5.

Your first study also uses estimates and admits there are no direct measurements.
Its even worse then the IPCC, as the IPCC tells you how accurate they think their work is while your denier claims he is just totally right.

 

[FAST]

Do you have a point hidden in this incomprehensible nonsense?

I have no doubt it is incomprehensible to some one who has the intelligence of a brain dead squirrel,...or is just playing his usual run away and hide game, which everybody here sees through.

If you want me to help you out again,...just ask frankie,...always here to help you.

FAST

 

[FAST]

IPCC uses an estimate, not a measurement. Come back when you have some real numbers.
And try and explain why the IPCC avoids using volcanoes and CO2 in the same sentence in AR5.

The IPCC has no way of determining what amount of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by volcanoes and deforestation, just two examples.

All they can do is guesstimate, and since they are just guessing on those two points, they have no way of knowing how much has been added by burning fossil fuels to the total now in the atmosphere.

But 4000 of them will eventually state that they have figured out a way to state, they know EXACTLY how much.

FAST

 

[eznutz]

Your first study also uses estimates and admits there are no direct measurements.
Its even worse then the IPCC, as the IPCC tells you how accurate they think their work is while your denier claims he is just totally right.

You obviously don't read all the posts, so here it is again...

Here's an actual study from someone who bothered to measure how much CO2 degasses from volcanoes.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...4GL019480/full

[1] We present the first regional map of CO2 Earth degassing from a large area (most of central and south Italy) derived from the carbon of deep provenance dissolved in the main springs of the region. The investigation shows that a globally significant amount of deeply derived CO2 (10% of the estimated global CO2 emitted from subaerial volcanoes) is released by two large areas located in western Italy. The anomalous flux of CO2 suddenly disappears in the Apennine in correspondence to a narrow band where most of seismicity concentrates. Here, at depth, the gas accumulates in crustal traps generating CO2 overpressurized reservoirs which induce seismicity.

So, where from the study does it say they didn't take measurements?

Also, why does the IPCC ignore mentioning volcanoes and CO2 in the same sentence not including eruptions.
Are they afraid people might learn the IPCC mathmagicians don't know what their talking about.

 

[eznutz]

But 4000 of them will eventually state that they have figured out a way to state, they know EXACTLY how much.

FAST

Exactly, 4000 computer simulation experts have it all figured out already, humans are to blame and the planet doesn't create CO2 on it's own.

 

[FAST]

You obviously don't read all the posts, so here it is again...

Here's an actual study from someone who bothered to measure how much CO2 degasses from volcanoes.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...4GL019480/full


So, where from the study does it say they didn't take measurements?

Also, why does the IPCC ignore the fact mentioning volcanoes and CO2 in the same sentence.
Are they afraid people might learn they don't know what their talking about.

Not sure who you were directing this post to.

But what I was trying to state was, the 4000 "climate scientists", have not produced anything concrete to show what % of the increase in CO2 can be attributed each source, and to include ALL of the sources.

I have no doubt someone has made such a study RE volcanoes, but unless it fits in the 4000 climate scientists play book, it will just be ignored.

FAST

 

[eznutz]

Not sure who you were directing this post to.

But what I was trying to state was, the 4000 "climate scientists", have not produced anything concrete to show what % of the increase in CO2 can be attributed each source, and to include ALL of the sources.

I have no doubt someone has made such a study RE volcanoes, but unless it fits in the 4000 climate scientists play book, it will just be ignored.

FAST

Sorry Fast, it was for Frankie

 

[eznutz]

I have no doubt someone has made such a study RE volcanoes, but unless it fits in the 4000 climate scientists play book, it will just be ignored.

FAST

This is how the IPCC gets their estimate, courtesy of the USGS (2010):

Scientists (actually only 1 researcher) have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

and Gerlach based his global estimate on researching 7 volcanoes and 3 hydrothermal vents. If the statement of the USGS concerning volcanic CO2 is any indication of the reliability of expert consensus, it would seem that verifiable facts are eminently more trustworthy than professional opinion.

And here is what the IPCC has to say about volcanoes, AR5 chapter 8...

The RF of volcanic aerosols is well understood and is greatest
for a short period (~2 years) following volcanic eruptions. There
have been no major volcanic eruptions since Mt Pinatubo in 1991, but
several smaller eruptions have caused a RF for the years 2008–2011 of
–0.11 (–0.15 to –0.08) W m–2 as compared to 1750 and –0.06 (–0.08
to –0.04) W m–2 as compared to 1999–2002. Emissions of CO2 from
volcanic eruptions since 1750 have been at least 100 times smaller
than anthropogenic emissions. {8.4.2, 8.5.2, Figures 8.12, 8.13, 8.18}

The IPCC admits it only counts CO2 from eruptions, ignoring the fact that volcanoes degas each and every day.

 

[eznutz]

Thank you for admitting you are a conspiracy theorist with little interest in science.

And thank you for admitting you're only interested in IPCC simulations and not real science.
Anybody can invent numbers and put them into a computer, real scientists like Chiodini et al. go out and actually measure how much CO2 volcanoes are releasing.
I will believe verifiable facts over IPCC opinion.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Click on the link embedded in that post after your name and it goes straight to the post where you made that statement.

Really?

Here's what you claimed I said: "I never said that Mann's graph had "predictions" on it."

Here's the actual quote that appears when you open the embedded link:

I never said that Mann's graph had "projections on it."

Not quite the same language, is it? Clearly, you did fabricate the quote. :thumb:

The point -- as I also clearly explained in that same paragraph -- is that I never said the predictions were "on" the graph, I said they came "from" the graph. That would be an entirely reasonable interpretation of your post.

And on that point, you still haven't explained what you meant when you said the current temperature trend "fits" Mann's graph.

 

[K Douglas]

Thank you for admitting you are a conspiracy theorist with little interest in science.

It's not a conspiracy theory when we know what the agenda was in the first place. In Maurice Strong's own words while speaking at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

 

[FAST]

It's not a conspiracy theory when we know what the agenda was in the first place. In Maurice Strong's own words while speaking at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

By ANY means.

And at the same time employ people with worthless credentials.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's the actual quote that appears when you open the embedded link:

Hey liar, here's the quote, and the link to the post is embedded in the header, the small 'double arrow' icon after your avatar appears:

- May 12, 2016 - He said the warming "slowdown" in the 21st century "fits" the predictions from Michael Mann's hockey stick graph: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5547096&viewfull=1#post5547096

This is the quote you accused me of lying about:

What a bullshitter. You altered my quote to completely change the meaning and then call me a liar. :frusty:

And its the same quote you claimed you didn't state that Mann's chart made 'predictions'.

I never said that Mann's graph had "predictions" on it.

Your 'greatest hits' attack contained a brutally stupid error.
Then you lied and said you didn't state that Mann's chart had 'predictions' from it.
Then you lied and said you never made the original quote.
Now you're lying and saying that the links were faked.

You keep digging yourself in, deeper and deeper.
Nicely done!