The scam is bigger than just fuel. The waste mash goes directly to cattle feedlots.
AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
Do you remember the beginning of the global warming scam when ozone holes and cosmic rays were pegged as the culprit?
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
Before you can call an estimate erroneous, you have to show that it is erroneous. You haven't. You very well could be right, but you have to show how first...
Yes, that's what I'm telling you...asking for what volume of gas was produced is meaningless. 1 cubic meter of carbon dioxide could be 1 ton, or 100 tons...
Before you can call an estimate erroneous, you have to show that it is erroneous. You haven't. You very well could be right, but you have to show how first...
Yes, that's what I'm telling you...asking for what volume of gas was produced is meaningless. 1 cubic meter of carbon dioxide could be 1 ton, or 100 tons...
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
Sure.
The statement was made that the emissions from eruptions are greater than airplanes, the disclaimer on the dtat set itself declares that it is an estimate... An estimate is not a factual conclusion.
Alright, let's run with that. The emissions from an eruption will exit and enter into the atm under tremendous pressure. That said, the emissions from a jet engine has a greater chance of entering the atm on a basis that is under-pressurized (relative to the volcano that is).
Chances are that the "estimates" do not reflect this possibility and that the volumes associated with volcanic emissions are woefully underestimated and the emissions of the jet engine(s) are specifically over estimated...
Let's be objective here, the eco fringe has proven time and time again that they are more than interested in skewing the data to reflect a preconceived ideal, I think that it is fair to say that the data in question is subject to this influence.
Sure.
The statement was made that the emissions from eruptions are greater than airplanes, the disclaimer on the dtat set itself declares that it is an estimate... An estimate is not a factual conclusion.
Alright, let's run with that. The emissions from an eruption will exit and enter into the atm under tremendous pressure. That said, the emissions from a jet engine has a greater chance of entering the atm on a basis that is under-pressurized (relative to the volcano that is).
Chances are that the "estimates" do not reflect this possibility and that the volumes associated with volcanic emissions are woefully underestimated and the emissions of the jet engine(s) are specifically over estimated...
Let's be objective here, the eco fringe has proven time and time again that they are more than interested in skewing the data to reflect a preconceived ideal, I think that it is fair to say that the data in question is subject to this influence.
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
Proof of fraud.
Nice try, but it is the the deniers who do that. You'd actually have to run in a circle to get a touch down.
I'm not the one peddling the conspiracies.
So do I.
Proof of fraud.
Nice try, but it is the the deniers who do that. You'd actually have to run in a circle to get a touch down.
I'm not the one peddling the conspiracies.
So do I.
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
You said that, not me.
Now prove it.
Estimates are used all the time and not just in volcanic activity.
Heck, I got an estimate on installing solar panels on my roof.....fyi, not cheap.
Sure would like to know where your pal Satchie got his numbers from to make his bizzare claim.
Perhaps you can ask him.
Yes, let's.
Take Satchie to task on his claim if you are that objective.
You said that, not me.
Now prove it.
Estimates are used all the time and not just in volcanic activity.
Heck, I got an estimate on installing solar panels on my roof.....fyi, not cheap.
Sure would like to know where your pal Satchie got his numbers from to make his bizzare claim.
Perhaps you can ask him.
Yes, let's.
Take Satchie to task on his claim if you are that objective.
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
Sure...
Go read your post, it's # 786... You state quite clearly "monthly"
Herein lies the problem, you are able to shop for estimates for solar panels, but in "science", particularly the AGW variety that claims mastery in the area, does not allow for the opportunity to shop estimates.
You should ask him
Sure...
Go read your post, it's # 786... You state quite clearly "monthly"
Herein lies the problem, you are able to shop for estimates for solar panels, but in "science", particularly the AGW variety that claims mastery in the area, does not allow for the opportunity to shop estimates.
You should ask him
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
Yes I know, it was your claim.
Or do you forget that.
That would be funny.
Hoe does one give an estimate for a job like installing solar panels?
I do estimates all the time in buisness, do you know how it's done?
I think you do because you do it as well.
Secondly, do you know how volcanic emmissions are measured?
Put the two togetther and....
I did, he dodged it. Perhaps in the name of objectivness you could pry out the info he has. Perhaps he was standing at the lip of the volcano with an infared analyzer....who knows.
Or, maybe, just maybe ....the volcano is part of this vast conspiracy.:lol:
Yes I know, it was your claim.
Or do you forget that.
That would be funny.
Hoe does one give an estimate for a job like installing solar panels?
I do estimates all the time in buisness, do you know how it's done?
I think you do because you do it as well.
Secondly, do you know how volcanic emmissions are measured?
Put the two togetther and....
I did, he dodged it. Perhaps in the name of objectivness you could pry out the info he has. Perhaps he was standing at the lip of the volcano with an infared analyzer....who knows.
Or, maybe, just maybe ....the volcano is part of this vast conspiracy.:lol:
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
I, along with many others, have provided this proof, but as expected, you deny it all together... You just like the mythical WWII Japanese soldier that doesn't know the war is over.
The really big irony here is that the circles that I (and others) have run, are around you and the rest of the truthers... After we ran up he score on the eco-propagandists, we stopped adding to the tally, it was just getting to be pointless in driving the divide wider and wider every time that the eco groups got owned or more frauds were publicized.
You're the only guy that is suggesting it.
I, along with many others, have provided this proof, but as expected, you deny it all together... You just like the mythical WWII Japanese soldier that doesn't know the war is over.
The really big irony here is that the circles that I (and others) have run, are around you and the rest of the truthers... After we ran up he score on the eco-propagandists, we stopped adding to the tally, it was just getting to be pointless in driving the divide wider and wider every time that the eco groups got owned or more frauds were publicized.
You're the only guy that is suggesting it.
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
Honestly, I don't know or care about the reasons for coral bleaching. They aren't part of or not part of any conspiracy that I'm aware of. The problem with the eco crap is that maybe some of it is true, who knows, but no matter what was causing any of the actual abnormalities the only thing they will ever blame it on is carbon even if that is as stupid of a suggestion as can be made.
I don't think there is a person in the world that isn't an environmentalist at heart. Of course, we all want a healthy, clean, sustainable planet. The problem is that the major eco groups have all been co-opted by big banking and haven't used any scientific method to come to their solutions. People unfairly paint everything as a conspiracy because it's an action word to consider something insane. But at it's definition this is a conspiracy. They lied and misrepresented data and had disagreeing scientists funding cut and in some cases fired them. That IS a conspiracy. Conspiracy isn't a complex word. It's quite simple, actually. it doesn't mean that the entire scope of what's going on is part of the conspiracy either. Not all GW alarmists are part of it. some of them are sheep that just happen to believe it.
Honestly, I don't know or care about the reasons for coral bleaching. They aren't part of or not part of any conspiracy that I'm aware of. The problem with the eco crap is that maybe some of it is true, who knows, but no matter what was causing any of the actual abnormalities the only thing they will ever blame it on is carbon even if that is as stupid of a suggestion as can be made.
I don't think there is a person in the world that isn't an environmentalist at heart. Of course, we all want a healthy, clean, sustainable planet. The problem is that the major eco groups have all been co-opted by big banking and haven't used any scientific method to come to their solutions. People unfairly paint everything as a conspiracy because it's an action word to consider something insane. But at it's definition this is a conspiracy. They lied and misrepresented data and had disagreeing scientists funding cut and in some cases fired them. That IS a conspiracy. Conspiracy isn't a complex word. It's quite simple, actually. it doesn't mean that the entire scope of what's going on is part of the conspiracy either. Not all GW alarmists are part of it. some of them are sheep that just happen to believe it.
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
No, you haven't actually.
Yeah, heard that line already.
Nope, the reason you run in circles is because you get owned again and again.
You have a very good imagination though.
Nope, that would be contrary to what I believe about conspiracies.
Like I said if the scientists aren't in collusion with the UN, IPCC, various governments and other scientific istitutions and publications what would you call it?
They are all dumb or that funny line about group think?
Seems Skatchie thinks it's a conspiracy(see above)....are you going to set him straight.
If not I guess he speaks for you then.
....and here I thought I wasn't going to get some laughs at the office.
No, you haven't actually.
Yeah, heard that line already.
Nope, the reason you run in circles is because you get owned again and again.
You have a very good imagination though.
Nope, that would be contrary to what I believe about conspiracies.
Like I said if the scientists aren't in collusion with the UN, IPCC, various governments and other scientific istitutions and publications what would you call it?
They are all dumb or that funny line about group think?
Seems Skatchie thinks it's a conspiracy(see above)....are you going to set him straight.
If not I guess he speaks for you then.
....and here I thought I wasn't going to get some laughs at the office.
This is a frustrating debate to have with people because a) the statistics and information behind what Avro says is all junk science. If it was true and Carbon was causing the Earth to warm, why does the rate of carbon in the atmosphere go up after temperature increases and not before? And why did the scientists conspire together to manipulate the data? It seems unnecessary to manipulate data that was already saying what you thought.
I'm not a scientist and haven't taken any readings, myself. It doesn't mean that I can't see a rat when it's in front of me. And for every rat you see there are a thousand you don't. The international banking community, ie the Rothschilds, wouldn't be financially backing a system that they weren't trying to game. The end game for the eco nuts is a global carbon tax, and cap and trade system, that is paid into a UN based, IMF like consortium. Basically, taxing us right into the hands of the uber wealthy. When you know how they've gotten to their conclusions and who's backing them and why, it makes it quite hard to believe that the claims they make about the environment are legitimate.
But you can go ahead and find BS and put it on here that THEY created for you. Go ahead. It's a waste of time though. It's all, in many ways, based on the corrupted data that we know to be false. Bu they'll run more controlled studies that get the exact result they wanted beforehand for you all to read and believe. Don't hate on realists that happen to see the scam for what it is though. We're not the ones being taken.
I'm not a scientist and haven't taken any readings, myself. It doesn't mean that I can't see a rat when it's in front of me. And for every rat you see there are a thousand you don't. The international banking community, ie the Rothschilds, wouldn't be financially backing a system that they weren't trying to game. The end game for the eco nuts is a global carbon tax, and cap and trade system, that is paid into a UN based, IMF like consortium. Basically, taxing us right into the hands of the uber wealthy. When you know how they've gotten to their conclusions and who's backing them and why, it makes it quite hard to believe that the claims they make about the environment are legitimate.
But you can go ahead and find BS and put it on here that THEY created for you. Go ahead. It's a waste of time though. It's all, in many ways, based on the corrupted data that we know to be false. Bu they'll run more controlled studies that get the exact result they wanted beforehand for you all to read and believe. Don't hate on realists that happen to see the scam for what it is though. We're not the ones being taken.
I posted the answer to your question but you didn't even read it.
I've given up with your conspiracy raddled mind.
Have fun in the land of make believe.
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
You do know what an estimate is, right? It's an approximate calculation. If you want to compare the volcano to airplane emissions of carbon, you need to estimate the carbon emissions from airplanes as well as estimate the emissions from the volcano...
So...you can't say that the estimate is incorrect. All measurements are essentially approximations. Is 1 kg measured on a scale really 1 kg? There is an inherent uncertainty in all measurements.
You do know what an estimate is, right? It's an approximate calculation. If you want to compare the volcano to airplane emissions of carbon, you need to estimate the carbon emissions from airplanes as well as estimate the emissions from the volcano...
So...you can't say that the estimate is incorrect. All measurements are essentially approximations. Is 1 kg measured on a scale really 1 kg? There is an inherent uncertainty in all measurements.
Really, there is actually a legitimate reason why the scientific community conspired together to lie to us, and even though their lies were 100% about the actual data, it doesn't change the relevancy of that data? I'd like to hear how that went. I'm too lazy to go back to find out though. I have a policy of not reading long winded explanations. Length of explanation is no determinant of whether it's valid.
And a definite lack of credibility and history of data manipulation by the people making those approximate measurements too, don't forget.
Because the climate is a dynamic system? If temperature has always lead carbon dioxide, it seems logical to conclude that what we see currently is not driven by the same natural mechanisms, as temperature is not leading the carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere.
The proof of how lazy you are is very clear.
Run along, I'm done with you.
Have a great weekend.
Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. You don't even know who made those measurements. This is textbook denial.
What makes you think that? Again, there are questions of validity in these statements. They wouldn't have conspired to lie about real data. I don't believe you, for one second, that carbon is leading temperature now. It's ridiculous.