Toronto Escorts

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
And even it admits that only 4% of scientists reject the idea that human CO2 has significantly affected the climate.

But somehow Jonny knows better.
Clue in
That study is tainted
How can you quote an number from it if The author categorized the papers based on his criteria and then stated the authors supported his concussion, all with out directly asking them
That is some serious misrepresentation
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Post #201 was a pornaddict copy and paste.
too funny
Are you claiming pornaddit has a credibility issue?
That is too funny coming from you

I thought you were better then that and claimed you could tell real science from junk.
I am and I could tell right from the get go that you were not to be trusted and that you did not and still do not understand what you preach about

Pornaddict couldn't even tell a faked Time Magazine cover from a real one, and if you spend more then 2 minutes on any of his posts you'll find the same issues.
Frankfooter could not define carbon as an organic material, does understand extrapolation and thinks there are special half lives for climate change studies.
Frank footer is a scientific illiterate and a lying bullshit artist and if you spend more then 2 minutes on any of his posts you'll find the same issues

Post #201 is typical, its a blog post that posts an opinion piece as if it were science or a legit report, the difference being that pornaddicts blog doesn't give accurate numbers or sources, nor has it been peer reviewed to back up its claims.
So claims the bullshit artist
Who do you think you are fooling?

That blog post is as 'scientific' as your insult laden rants here.
you would know or understand real science if it ran you over
Hows that carbon calculation going?
Still too stupid to complete a grade 10 level question?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,033
19,092
113
too funny
Are you claiming pornaddit has a credibility issue?
That is too funny coming from you
I am and I could tell right from the get go that you were not to be trusted and that you did not and still do not understand what you preach about
Frankfooter could not define carbon as an organic material, does understand extrapolation and thinks there are special half lives for climate change studies.
Frank footer is a scientific illiterate and a lying bullshit artist and if you spend more then 2 minutes on any of his posts you'll find the same issues
So claims the bullshit artist
Who do you think you are fooling?
you would know or understand real science if it ran you over
Hows that carbon calculation going?
Still too stupid to complete a grade 10 level question?
Another insult laden post devoid of any information.
Like I said, if you think pornaddict is credible then I should sell you some souvenir Time Magazine covers.
Special issues, collectable!

Neither you nor pornaddict can come up with a reasonable debate about the scientific consensus on climate change.
Instead you 'deny' the findings of multiple, peer assessed, studies.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Another insult laden post devoid of any information.
Like I said, if you think pornaddict is credible then I should sell you some souvenir Time Magazine covers.
Special issues, collectable!

Neither you nor pornaddict can come up with a reasonable debate about the scientific consensus on climate change.
Instead you 'deny' the findings of multiple, peer assessed, studies.
Look dummy you are not credible, not to me, not to anyone
You have been asked a few simple science oriented questions & can not answer them & you have been shown to be completely lacking in scientific understanding.
You have been wrong more times than one can recall, you miss-represented yourself (Frankfooter/ Groggy) and others and you lie.

why in the world would anyone believe you when you accuse someone else of not being credible?

Perhaps we could conduct a poll here to determine how many do not find you credible?
my guess is 99% would not,
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,033
19,092
113
Look dummy you are not credible, not to me, not to anyone
You have been asked a few simple science oriented questions & can not answer them & you have been shown to be completely lacking in scientific understanding.
You have been wrong more times than one can recall, you miss-represented yourself (Frankfooter/ Groggy) and others and you lie.

why in the world would anyone believe you when you accuse someone else of not being credible?

Perhaps we could conduct a poll here to determine how many do not find you credible?
my guess is 99% would not,
Its pretty hilarious you think that the entirety of climate change science is based on my personal reputation on this board.
It really sums up your claim that you are 'neutral' that associate and assess the legit science of the IPCC based on your personal feelings.
You're just yet another science denier basing your claims on feelings.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Its pretty hilarious you think that the entirety of climate change science is based on my personal reputation on this board.
What is hilarious is despite your reputation on this board you still bother to post


It really sums up your claim that you are 'neutral' that associate and assess the legit science of the IPCC based on your personal feelings.
No the neutral position is due in part to morons like you who claim their position is absolute and I know that is next to impossible
I also know that in order to look past recorded history and to predict out in the future requires extrapolation and estimates, so I knew your claim of 99.94% was not appropriate at all

When I see such mis-representations I become skeptical

Then as it turns out that 99.94% value was some author misrepresenting scientists without actually asking them for their opinion
"shoddy" and mis-represented work. but good enough for your propaganda purposes
Shameful


You're just yet another science denier basing your claims on feelings.
Look stupid, I can not be a denier if I am neutral

Once again you misrepresent me. STOP that you POS
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,312
6,463
113
Clue in
That study is tainted
How can you quote an number from it if The author categorized the papers based on his criteria and then stated the authors supported his concussion, all with out directly asking them
That is some serious misrepresentation
Do you have better data or are you still playing conspiracy theorist? But that's right, you don't need science to support your view because you simply know better.


And in case you missed it, you stated that post had all the scientific evidence showing alternate reasons for current climactic change when in reality it is just some guy bitching about a study he didn't like. I'm still waiting for you to provide some scientific evidence that supports your denial of human CO2 playing a significant role in current climate change.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,312
6,463
113
...

Frankfooter could not define carbon as an organic material,...
Carbon is not an organic molecule. Organic molecules are typically defined as molecules having a C-H bond. That means neither carbon itself nor CO2 are organic.

But that's only what science says (which you don't seem to bother with).
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Do you have better data or are you still playing conspiracy theorist? But that's right, you don't need science to support your view because you simply know better.


And in case you missed it, you stated that post had all the scientific evidence showing alternate reasons for current climactic change when in reality it is just some guy bitching about a study he didn't like. I'm still waiting for you to provide some scientific evidence that supports your denial of human CO2 playing a significant role in current climate change.
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Challenge UN IPCC :panel


More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.”

Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”

— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”

— Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”

— Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”

— Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”

— Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”

— Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”

— Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.”

— Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Do you have better data or are you still playing conspiracy theorist? But that's right, you don't need science to support your view because you simply know better.
Having a neutral position does not imply that I think I know better. Just as it does not concede that I do not.
It is extremity presumptuous for you to assume you know what I believe .

And in case you missed it, you stated that post had all the scientific evidence showing alternate reasons for current climactic change when in reality it is just some guy bitching about a study he didn't like.
I stated no such thing.
I just repeated some of the issues with how the consensus of 99.94% was obtained & it quite different from how it was portrayed prior to post 201, as gospel and absolute

at no point did I state "that post had all the scientific evidence showing alternate reasons for current climactic change"

I'm still waiting for you to provide some scientific evidence that supports your denial of human CO2 playing a significant role in current climate change.
Do not hold your breath waiting
As stated many times before I am neutral on this issue, It is not possible to deny one position or the opposing position, while maintaining a neutral position.
That is straightforward logic you should understand

You continue to try and apply false authority and you misrepresent what I say
Stop doing that ! It only makes you appear to have less conviction in your position than you portray

Why are you so bent out of shape about a neutral position, if you are absolutely 100% sure about your position?
do you not respect the fact that others views will differ from yours?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,033
19,092
113
Having a neutral position does not imply that I think I know better. Just as it does not concede that I do not.
It is extremity presumptuous for you to assume you know what I believe .
I quoted your own words, are you stating that you were lying previously?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Carbon is not an organic molecule. Organic molecules are typically defined as molecules having a C-H bond. That means neither carbon itself nor CO2 are organic.

But that's only what science says (which you don't seem to bother with).
that is not correct
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/organic-molecule
organic molecule
A molecule of the kind normally found in living systems. Organic molecules are usually composed of carbon atoms in rings or long chains, to which are attached other atoms of such elements as hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry
Organic chemistry is a chemistry subdiscipline involving the scientific study of the structure, properties, and reactions of organic compounds and organic materials, i.e., matter in its various forms that contain carbon atoms.[1]
For someone who is so absolute in his position based upon the science, you also seem to be lacking in basic understanding of science
The defintion of organic chemistry was/is introduced to most people in high school.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,033
19,092
113
Then as it turns out that 99.94% value was some author misrepresenting scientists without actually asking them for their opinion
"shoddy" and mis-represented work. but good enough for your propaganda purposes
Shameful
Its hilarious that you think you need to ask authors opinions rather then read their findings in peer assessed papers.
Just as hilarious as you claim to be neutral but refuse to honestly assess anything because of your personal feelings.
The 99.94% consensus was achieved by assessing the results of over 50,000 peer assessed papers, not by personal feelings.

You are not neutral, you are as much a science denier as moviefan.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,033
19,092
113
that is not correct
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/organic-molecule



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry


For someone who is so absolute in his position based upon the science, you also seem to be lacking in basic understanding of science
The defintion of organic chemistry was/is introduced to most people in high school.
The definition of organic matter is that which contains carbon. But that doesn't mean that a diamond was ever alive, as there are plenty of inorganic compounds that contain carbon.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Its hilarious that you think you need to ask authors opinions rather then read their findings in peer assessed papers.
It most certainly is if you are going to use their names & results to support an explicit blanket statement such as "human CO2 playing a significant role in current climate change." & "we need to stop the use of fossil fuels immediately" & we need to oppose all infrastructure builds related to fossil fuels
Some papers may only support part of those statements or may just be confirming levels of C02 which do not align with expectations based upon historical extrapolation or independently temperatures which do not align with expectations based upon historical extrapolation

That is extremely misleading


Just as hilarious as you claim to be neutral but refuse to honestly assess anything because of your personal feelings.
Personal feelings?
I am skeptical because I know that reaching back further than recorded history requires extrapolation & I happen to buy into the theory the planet has been evolving throughout its history
I am also skeptical when a lying moron who does not understand the basics claims his position is absolute based upon science

The 99.94% consensus was achieved by assessing the results of over 50,000 peer assessed papers, not by personal feelings.
Categorized and assigned a yes not vote by one man

You are not neutral, you are as much a science denier as moviefan.
Look stupid, I can not be a denier if I am neutral
I have denied nothing
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
The definition of organic matter is that which contains carbon.
Frankfooter; said:
Your site talks about carbon dating for organic material, those numbers are not correct for climate change studies.
Too funny
You are so stupid
Tell us what is the correct half live of carbon for climate change studies and why it is different from other studies?


But that doesn't mean that a diamond was ever alive, as there are plenty of inorganic compounds that contain carbon.
Alive or dead or never alive, that is irrelevant.
Organic molecules are usually composed of carbon atoms in rings or long chains, to which are attached other atoms of such elements as hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,312
6,463
113
More Than 1000 International Scientists ...
Out of millions world-wide.

And have you looked at the resumes of the people on that list. It's pretty much as applicable to the topic as the list of retired astronauts and project managers you provided before.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,312
6,463
113
Having a neutral position does not imply that I think I know better....
Obviously it does (and it is not neutral). You are choosing to reject the works of thousands of independent scientist which the vast majority of concluded that human CO2 is playing a significant role in current climate. As I said before, you are choosing a side by accepting ignorance and simply relying on your resistance to accept new ideas.

The only honest part of your post is where you admit you will never provide any scientific backing to justify rejecting AGW..
Do not hold your breath waiting
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,530
6,944
113
Room 112
Obviously it does (and it is not neutral). You are choosing to reject the works of thousands of independent scientist which the vast majority of concluded that human CO2 is playing a significant role in current climate. As I said before, you are choosing a side by accepting ignorance and simply relying on your resistance to accept new ideas.

The only honest part of your post is where you admit you will never provide any scientific backing to justify rejecting AGW..
Who are these thousands of independent scientists you speak of? And how can they be independent when they are all relying on the same payer (the public purse) for their livelihood?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts