The new official climate change thread

[Frankfooter]

Nice try Groggy, but the book on you has been written
Your forever stamped as untrustworthy, so why do you keep attempting to sell your snake oil ?

Sorry larue, but slander isn't debate.
If you've got nothing left to add to this discussion other then slander, why don't you and canada-man start a thread for the two of you.

Now I went and gave you a specific question, one that veered away from the use of legit scientists you typically characterize as 'zealots' and to an article based largely on reporting real world changes and extreme climate events.

So once again:


This Rolling Stone article is a good summary of some of the evidence we've seen that we are experiencing drastic and unprecedented in human history, changes.
Its not based on IPCC reports, but merely reports extreme climate based events.
Its a year old, so it misses things like the North Pole being above zero just after New Years this year for the first time ever, but its got quite a bit of info.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805?page=6

Now take those warning signs and put them in the context of your own statement:

If it is driven by man-kind then doing nothing would be the biggest sin man-kind ever committed

Then take a look at all those different warning signs, all of which are pretty much what was projected by climatologists and tell me what you think the odds are that this is not driven by human actions.

Now answer this question:
How much evidence, like that reported in Rolling Stone, does it take to convince you that you are supporting the 'biggest sin man-kind ever committed'?

 

[JohnLarue]

Sorry larue, but slander isn't debate.
If you've got nothing left to add to this discussion other then slander, why don't you and canada-man start a thread for the two of you.

Now I went and gave you a specific question, one that veered away from the use of legit scientists you typically characterize as 'zealots' and to an article based largely on reporting real world changes and extreme climate events.

So once again:


This Rolling Stone article is a good summary of some of the evidence we've seen that we are experiencing drastic and unprecedented in human history, changes.
Its not based on IPCC reports, but merely reports extreme climate based events.
Its a year old, so it misses things like the North Pole being above zero just after New Years this year for the first time ever, but its got quite a bit of info.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805?page=6



Now take those warning signs and put them in the context of your own statement:


Then take a look at all those different warning signs, all of which are pretty much what was projected by climatologists and tell me what you think the odds are that this is not driven by human actions.

Now answer this question:
How much evidence, like that reported in Rolling Stone, does it take to convince you that you are supporting the 'biggest sin man-kind ever committed'?

Once again you do not get it
Nobody takes you seriously, so why would anyone answer your questions ?

 

[Frankfooter]

Once again you do not get it
Nobody takes you seriously, so why would anyone answer your questions ?

Sorry larue, but slander isn't debate.
If you've got nothing left to add to this discussion other then slander, why don't you and canada-man start a thread for the two of you.

I understand that you can't answer those questions, that your views are so shaky that they can't stand any day light on them.
Its typical of all the deniers here, you ask them a tricky question and they hide away for a couple of days, try to change the topic or like you, just default to insults.

What you've clearly proven is that you fully fit the definition of the fore mentioned study. You swing farther right then republicans, you won't change your mind regardless of what facts are shown and further questions only makes you dig in further to defend your ever shakier claims. You are obviously at the point where you can't even raise any legit points and are left only with insults and slander.

Your replies prove you fit the study:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2943.epdf

How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?

 

[FAST]

Pot & kettle

Sorry larue, but slander isn't debate.
If you've got nothing left to add to this discussion other then slander, why don't you and canada-man start a thread for the two of you.

I understand that you can't answer those questions, that your views are so shaky that they can't stand any day light on them.
Its typical of all the deniers here, you ask them a tricky question and they hide away for a couple of days, try to change the topic or like you, just default to insults.

What you've clearly proven is that you fully fit the definition of the fore mentioned study. You swing farther right then republicans, you won't change your mind regardless of what facts are shown and further questions only makes you dig in further to defend your ever shakier claims. You are obviously at the point where you can't even raise any legit points and are left only with insults and slander.

Your replies prove you fit the study:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2943.epdf

How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?

Sorry footer, but slander isn't debate.
I understand that you can't answer ANY questions, that your views are so shaky that they can't stand any day light on them.
Its typical of you, ask a tricky question and try to change the topic or just default to insults.
What you've clearly proven is that you fully fit the definition of the fore mentioned study. You swing farther left than commies, you won't change your mind regardless of what facts are shown and further questions only makes you dig in further to defend your ever shakier claims. You are obviously at the point where you can't even raise any legit points and are left only with insults and slander.
How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Sorry footer, but slander isn't debate.
I understand that you can't answer ANY questions, that your views are so shaky that they can't stand any day light on them.
Its typical of you, ask a tricky question and try to change the topic or just default to insults.
What you've clearly proven is that you fully fit the definition of the fore mentioned study. You swing farther left than commies, you won't change your mind regardless of what facts are shown and further questions only makes you dig in further to defend your ever shakier claims. You are obviously at the point where you can't even raise any legit points and are left only with insults and slander.
How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?

FAST

Nice try, would have been good except of course I do answer questions and give sources.
But don't blame me when you're not able to understand concepts like the carbon cycle.

You, for instance, don't provide any sources and repeatedly accuse all government funded scientists of being in some kind of conspiracy run by the UN.
That fits the terms of the study, a right wing (yes the study noted that this is typical of right wingers like you and larue, not left wingers or moderates like me).
This is typical of you that you don't even know what the study reported, yet act as if you do.

I provided a study and examples of behaviour to make a case.
That's not slander, that's science.

Obviously you can't tell the difference, just as you can't tell the difference between oil industry disinformation and real science.

 

[JohnLarue]

Obviously you can't tell the difference, just as you can't tell the difference between oil industry disinformation and real science.

And that is exactly why nobody should take what you post seriously

You start with the incorrect premise that your biased opinion determines what is real science and what is not & you never waver from that position.
That and you always have an unspoken agenda

Real science starts with a absolutely clean slate without any predetermined conclusion or bias in order to provide a logical and unbiased response to a hypothesis

You do not do that when evaluating Scientific reports, so how in the world do you get to determine what is Real Science ?????

You would not know Real Science if it ran you over

 

[Moviefan-2]

But I can go do the calculation, and it's going to show an enormously significant relationship between time and temperature.

So, go ahead and do the calculation.

Looking at the actual temperature anomalies, I stand by my statement that there was no statistically significant warming in the 21st century prior to the El Nino weather phenomenon.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

 

[FAST]

OK footer.

What percentage of CO2 that is constantly being added to the atmosphere, can be attributed to burning fossil fuels ?

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Real science starts with a absolutely clean slate without any predetermined conclusion or bias in order to provide a logical and unbiased response to a hypothesis

You do not do that when evaluating Scientific reports, so how in the world do you get to determine what is Real Science ?????

You would not know Real Science if it ran you over

That is how the IPCC reports are done.
They start with a clean state then synthesize the findings of climatologists all over the world.

Do you call medical researchers 'zealots' for all coming to similar conclusions about tobacco smoke causing cancer?
When the research points to the same results its because the results are correct.

Or are you one of those conspiracy theory, right wingers, who believe that all the climatologists in over 100 countries have all come to the same conclusion because of some conspiracy?

Why don't you accept that the findings reported by the IPCC represent the findings of science?
Please explain.

 

[Frankfooter]

OK footer.

What percentage of CO2 that is constantly being added to the atmosphere, can be attributed to burning fossil fuels ?

FAST

The information you are looking for is here:
https://www.iea.org/publications/fr...EmissionsFromFuelCombustionHighlights2015.pdf

The easy and FAST answer is that most CO2 added by humans is from burning fossil fuels. Estimates between 75%-87%, depending on what you list and how.

See, ask a question and you get an answer and a source.
Now you're going to go off and claim that its tiny compared to sections of the carbon cycle like agriculture or cement, as you do.
And then I'm going to have to remind you that the difference is that fossil fuel is carbon that had been sequestered for millions of years, as the carbon cycle had been running as revenue neutral (no large increases or decreases) for a long time before we start burning sequestered carbon and adding that to the atmosphere.

There, did I save you some time, or are you going to ask anyways just because you still don't understand?

 

[Frankfooter]

So, go ahead and do the calculation.

Looking at the actual temperature anomalies, I stand by my statement that there was no statistically significant warming in the 21st century prior to the El Nino weather phenomenon.

Of course you do, even though there is only a 0.01% chance that you are correct, statistically.

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...possible-without-manmade-climate-change-study

Your statistics are as reliant on fairy tale math as the rest of your posts.

 

[JohnLarue]

That is how the IPCC reports are done.
They start with a clean state then synthesize the findings of climatologists all over the world.

Do you call medical researchers 'zealots' for all coming to similar conclusions about tobacco smoke causing cancer?
When the research points to the same results its because the results are correct.

Or are you one of those conspiracy theory, right wingers, who believe that all the climatologists in over 100 countries have all come to the same conclusion because of some conspiracy?

Why don't you accept that the findings reported by the IPCC represent the findings of science?
Please explain.

I have neither accepted or rejected any findings

Re clean slate
You however do not start off with a clean state and arguing that you are anything but a zealot with an agenda just insults the intelligence of those you seek to convince

Again science starts with no bias
You start with bias & this along with some of your other baggage makes you untrustworthy and thus incapable of defining what is real science

Why would anyone trust the word of the village idiot?

 

[Frankfooter]

I have neither accepted or rejected any findings

Tubula rasa, eh?
Or just empty of all thought?

Look, go to their site:
http://ipcc.ch/

There they show you the summaries, the full reports and the links to the papers that they are synthesizing in their findings.
That, my friend, is where all the science lies.

If you really have no bias, you should be able to go and read their summaries, check the full reports for details, check the papers to find the data to check the work even.
Or are you too biased to read those reports?

Re clean slate
You however do not start off with a clean state and arguing that you are anything but a zealot with an agenda just insults the intelligence of those you seek to convince

My slate is filled with the research I have already taken on this issue, the papers, news, reports and work I read on this subject. I've read them with an open mind and been convinced that the work done at the IPCC is really quite good, and I've inspected the work moviefan et al read and I've found major, big, massive holes in it. Like the paper from the unnamed scientist that you personally linked to that tried to make a case by using misleading techniques like switching between surface temperatures and stratosphere temperatures when the surface temps didn't agree with his claims.

I have a bullshit detector and it catches mistakes like that.

And lets be clear, this isn't my work you are slandering here, this is the work of all climatologists across the world, as summarized by the IPCC.

 

[FAST]

The information you are looking for is here:
https://www.iea.org/publications/fr...EmissionsFromFuelCombustionHighlights2015.pdf

The easy and FAST answer is that most CO2 added by humans is from burning fossil fuels. Estimates between 75%-87%, depending on what you list and how.

See, ask a question and you get an answer and a source.
Now you're going to go off and claim that its tiny compared to sections of the carbon cycle like agriculture or cement, as you do.
And then I'm going to have to remind you that the difference is that fossil fuel is carbon that had been sequestered for millions of years, as the carbon cycle had been running as revenue neutral (no large increases or decreases) for a long time before we start burning sequestered carbon and adding that to the atmosphere.

There, did I save you some time, or are you going to ask anyways just because you still don't understand?

I repeat your self descriptive,..."How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?"

But hey,...I'll give you a 2nd chance,...here is the same question one more time,..."What percentage of CO2 that is continually being added to the atmosphere can be attributed to fossil fuel burning?"

If you require help understanding the question,...I know its quite complicated,...please let me know.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

I repeat your self descriptive,..."How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?"

But hey,...I'll give you a 2nd chance,...here is the same question one more time,..."What percentage of CO2 that is continually being added to the atmosphere can be attributed to fossil fuel burning?"

If you require help understanding the question,...I know its quite complicated,...please let me know.

FAST

See, that's the problem with answering questions for you.
Even when I answer them, you don't understand them and then keep answering the same question over and over again.
If you require help with understanding the statement I made I can try to add more punctuation to it, add in some conspiracy claims and see if I can make it more of a FAST style answer for you.
But if you can't understand the basics, what are you doing here?

By the way, the news is that as long as you live, the earth will never see CO2 levels less then 400ppm.
Congrats on helping screw your kids (should the earth be so unlucky as to have more little FASTS).
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...levels-will-never-go-back-scientists-say.html

 

[FAST]

See, that's the problem with answering questions for you.
Even when I answer them, you don't understand them and then keep answering the same question over and over again.
If you require help with understanding the statement I made I can try to add more punctuation to it, add in some conspiracy claims and see if I can make it more of a FAST style answer for you.
But if you can't understand the basics, what are you doing here?

By the way, the news is that as long as you live, the earth will never see CO2 levels less then 400ppm.
Congrats on helping screw your kids (should the earth be so unlucky as to have more little FASTS).
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...levels-will-never-go-back-scientists-say.html

You STILL have NOT answered the question,...so your self descriptive still applies,..."How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?"

One more,...and LAST time footer,..."What percentage of CO2 that is continually being added to the atmosphere can be attributed to fossil fuel burning?"

My offer of help still stands.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

You STILL have NOT answered the question,...so your self descriptive still applies,..."How can anyone take you seriously when all you do is squirm and resort to slander when you're asked simple questions?"

One more,...and LAST time footer,..."What percentage of CO2 that is continually being added to the atmosphere can be attributed to fossil fuel burning?"

My offer of help still stands.

FAST

Try reading it again.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5570256&viewfull=1#post5570256
Feel free to move your lips while you read if it helps.

 

[FAST]

Try reading it again.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5570256&viewfull=1#post5570256
Feel free to move your lips while you read if it helps.

You have NOT answered my question, all you did was link to yet another site you obviously have NOT read or don't understand,...probably both.

I did NOT ask you to cut and past some link,...I asked you a simple question,...which you STILL have not answered.

As you STILL have not,...that can only mean one of three things,...you are evading the question,...you don't know how to answer,...or you can't read.

My offer of help still stands,...as does your self description.

Do You actually think you are fooling anybody here,...and doesn't recognize your simple minded game,... the well known footer avoidance dance as you google for an answer that suits you,...but until then, continue with the footer dance,...all that is getting,... :yawn:


FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

You have NOT answered my question, all you did was link to yet another site you obviously have NOT read or don't understand,...probably both.

I did NOT ask you to cut and past some link,...I asked you a simple question,...which you STILL have not answered.

As you STILL have not,...that can only mean one of three things,...you are evading the question,...you don't know how to answer,...or you can't read.

My offer of help still stands,...as does your self description.

Do You actually think you are fooling anybody here,...and doesn't recognize your simple minded game,... the well known footer avoidance dance as you google for an answer that suits you,...but until then, continue with the footer dance,...all that is getting,... :yawn:


FAST

Try reading it again, this time pay attention to the third sentence in the post.
Read it again.
Think about it.
Read it one more time.
Use google on the words you don't understand.
Read it once more.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5570256&viewfull=1#post5570256

Then, after you see the answer feel free to apologize for being so incredibly stupid as to have missed the answer three times in a row.

 

[FAST]

Try reading it again, this time pay attention to the third sentence in the post.
Read it again.
Think about it.
Read it one more time.
Use google on the words you don't understand.
Read it once more.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...hange-thread&p=5570256&viewfull=1#post5570256

Then, after you see the answer feel free to apologize for being so incredibly stupid as to have missed the answer three times in a row.

I have not missed the answer,...that is NOT an answer my question,...

Your' done footer,...and everybody here knows it.


FAST