New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
sure lapper! You the loyal lapdog... the guy who self-proclaims, "I don't have a reason/rationale to claim LIAR... I don't need a reason/rationale to claim LIAR"! :mrgreen: You're nothing but a petulant juvenile with nothing positive to contribute in anything.
I love the way people act when they get called on their bullshyte ...Any fool can spot your false indignation....you lost all credibility when you didn't fess-up when caught in your lie....that's why, a little at a time everybody sees you for what you are....a blowhard bullsh*tter!
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
I love the way people act when they get called on their bullshyte ...Any fool can spot your false indignation....you lost all credibility when you didn't fess-up when caught in your lie....that's why, a little at a time everybody sees you for what you are....a blowhard bullsh*tter!

sure lapper! My anonymous "credibility" as determined by the clubhouse crew! :mrgreen: I relish each and every opportunity to read you continuing to refer back to it and showcase your part in the marginalization attempt, one based on nothing more than a purposeful "petros dance" misinterpretation and manipulation of a few short words I said. Again, the glaring facts that you finally admitted, several times, that you have "no reason/no rationale" to claim I lied... that you stated outright that you don't need "a reason/a rationale" to claim I lied... that solidifies your juvenile and petulant self as nothing more than a loyal clubhouse shyte-disturbing lapdog. Ooooooh... you stated I'm a blowhard bullsh*tter!... and that's supposed to mean something to me? I could give a rats-patooey what you think! But hey now... you keep nattering on about it... you keep referencing back to it! Reinforce your lapdog self! You have to post something cause you certainly can't say anything related to the subject matter at hand! :mrgreen:

Never mind....we'll let idiots be idiots.

yup! :mrgreen: Your lil' GLOBAL window view!
Yeah right. Seems to me GW is probably the greatest con in human history. Especially when I look out the window at 4 feet of snow on the ground....on April 10.

Heh-heh. You probably don't even get that you just proved my point.

no - you showcased your fake-skepticism with your outright dismissal of that radiative forcing graphic... it most categorically speaks to more than CO2. Again:
how curt of you to simply dismiss that chart of summary external radiative forcing components (natural and anthropogenic). Don't hesitate to provide a summary accounting and substantiation that attributes the relatively recent warming to internal mechanisms and/or natural external forcings.
again:
if you're able please go beyond your simplistic unsubstantiated statements and actually speak to a qualitative/quantitative impact you interpret non-crop plants to have as an increasing CO2 sink... or what ocean marine ecosystem changes you interpret will complement air-sea gas diffusion exchange... notwithstanding acidification influences.
again:
again, particularly with a/YOUR focus on offsetting increasing atmospheric levels of CO2... I'm really keen to see you speak more directly, more specifically, to the types of plants you presume to act as a significant offsetting sink and most pointedly what regions of the earth you're anticipating this increased sink effect from... with or without accompanying migration range shifts relative to climate change impacts. Don't forget to factor those peat plant/soil wetland and permafrost melting feedback influences associated with increased CO2... and methane... release to the atmospheric, hey! Since you've dropped your earlier reference to oceans... does this mean you've also dropped that related claim?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
sure lapper! My anonymous "credibility" as determined by the clubhouse crew! :mrgreen: I relish each and every opportunity to read you continuing to refer back to it and showcase your part in the marginalization attempt, one based on nothing more than a purposeful "petros dance" misinterpretation and manipulation of a few short words I said. Again, the glaring facts that you finally admitted, several times, that you have "no reason/no rationale" to claim I lied... that you stated outright that you don't need "a reason/a rationale" to claim I lied... that solidifies your juvenile and petulant self as nothing more than a loyal clubhouse shyte-disturbing lapdog. Ooooooh... you stated I'm a blowhard bullsh*tter!... and that's supposed to mean something to me? I could give a rats-patooey what you think! But hey now... you keep nattering on about it... you keep referencing back to it! Reinforce your lapdog self! You have to post something cause you certainly can't say anything related to the subject matter at hand! :mrgreen:



yup! :mrgreen: Your lil' GLOBAL window view!

no - you showcased your fake-skepticism with your outright dismissal of that radiative forcing graphic... it most categorically speaks to more than CO2. Again:

Do you have a degree in any relevant science Waldo?

Give us your CV.

Are you a graduate student perhaps?

A scientist?

I doubt it.

And neither am I.

That means that our opinion is based on the stated positions of others considered experts in their field.

It also means that the credibility of the "experts" is the only thing we can really judge.

And climate alarmists have no credibility.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,043
8,315
113
Washington DC
Do you have a degree in any relevant science Waldo?

Give us your CV.

Are you a graduate student perhaps?

A scientist?

I doubt it.

And neither am I.

That means that our opinion is based on the stated positions of others considered experts in their field.

It also means that the credibility of the "experts" is the only thing we can really judge.

And climate alarmists have no credibility.
That actually doesn't matter. You don't need a degree to do or understand science. Thomas Edison did OK without one. So does an inventor friend of mine who dropped out of Princeton because they kept telling him he couldn't do things he knew he could. And he was right.

I'm rethinking this whole AGW thing and starting to lean toward the warmists. They present an awful lot of evidence. Again, it ain't conclusive, but we launched wars against Iraq and Afghanistan (to say nothing of Vietnam) on poorer and shallower evidence. We built a massive "security" bureaucracy and ripped up the Bill of Rights based on the "one percent" principle, as postulated by the Vice President of the United States:

"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."
--Richard the Bruce Cheney

I'd say the evidence presented by waldo and his smarter, less odious cohort (Zip, Floss, Dex, & Co.) adds up to considerably more'n one percent. Therefore, they're entitled to at least as much money poured down ratholes and violence to individual freedom and civil rights as the Muzzie-haters got.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
That means that our opinion is based on the stated positions of others considered experts in their field.

It also means that the credibility of the "experts" is the only thing we can really judge.

And climate alarmists have no credibility.

your posts don't speak to the science. Your posts don't differentiate "climate alarmists" from what you referred to as "considered experts". Oh wait, is it your claim/position that any scientist holding a position that accepts GW/AGW... is a "climate alarmist"... has no credibility?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
58,043
8,315
113
Washington DC
your posts don't speak to the science. Your posts don't differentiate "climate alarmists" from what you referred to as "considered experts". Oh wait, is it your claim/position that any scientist holding a position that accepts GW/AGW... is a "climate alarmist"... has no credibility?
Don't matter nohow. You don't have to be a credentialed expert to be right. And you certainly don't need to be one to review the work done for consistency and credibility. It's a false trail, waldo, a red herring. No point chasing it.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
"In order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place, which means that if you are absolutely no good at something then you lack exactly the skills that you need to know that you're absolutely no good at it."

You guys need to internalize that.

Dunning Kruger Effect. The stupid people don't know they're stupid.




Look in the mirror, it'll help.

how curt of you to simply dismiss that chart of summary external radiative forcing components (natural and anthropogenic). Don't hesitate to provide a summary accounting and substantiation that attributes the relatively recent warming to internal mechanisms and/or natural external forcings.



with increasing temperatures... you're focused on an "impending ice age"... because???



no, 'It's NOT the Sun"! Solar irradiance is down as temperature has increased; again:

nonsense! From the U.S. Global Change Research Program's latest iterative (2014) National Climate Assessment report:
- Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, diseases, insect pests, and other climate change induced stresses.

- Climate disruptions to agricultural production have increased in the recent past and are projected to increase further over the next 25 years. By mid-century and beyond, these impacts will be increasingly negative on most crops and livestock.

- The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock productivity because critical thresholds are already being exceeded.

- Current loss and degradation of critical agricultural soil and water assets by increasing extremes in precipitation will continue to challenge both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture unless innovative conservation methods are implemented.

- Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of forests to ecosystem change and tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, drought, and disease outbreaks. Western U.S. forests are particularly vulnerable to increased wildfire and insect outbreaks; eastern forests have smaller disturbances but could be more sensitive to periodic drought.

- U.S. forests currently absorb about 13% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by fossil fuel burning in the U.S. Climate change, combined with current societal trends regarding land use and forest management, is projected to reduce forest CO2 uptake.

- Climate change impacts on ecosystems reduce their ability to improve water quality and regulate water flows.

- Climate change combined with other stressors is overwhelming the capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts from extreme events like fires, floods, and storms.

- Land- and sea-scapes are changing rapidly and species, including many iconic species, may disappear from regions where they have been prevalent, changing some regions so much that their mix of plant and animal life will become almost unrecognizable.

- Timing of critical biological events, such as spring bud burst, emergence from overwintering, and the start of migrations, will shift, leading to important impacts on species and habitats.

From the latest IPCC AR5 reports:




deniers gonna deny!






The exact same damn thing they told in the 70's would happen by the turn of the century if we did not make major cuts. Since the 70's "pollutants" have risen, yet, here we are 40 years later still all alive, still eating well. So again, why the hell should we believe the alarmists this time around.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
10
Aether Island
Global warming denial! So boring. Can't we post something for anti-vaxers, gravity deniers, creationists, new earthers, "them"haters, or hell-fire stokers?
No, wait...
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
The exact same damn thing they told in the 70's would happen by the turn of the century if we did not make major cuts. Since the 70's "pollutants" have risen, yet, here we are 40 years later still all alive, still eating well. So again, why the hell should we believe the alarmists this time around.

notwithstanding you're somewhat vague in what you're referring to... see Montreal Protocol... and recognize what global participation/cooperation between countries can realize in response to global impacting problems:




per NOAA:


 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Oh goody yet another computer projection by people with an agenda. Does your church do revenue projections as well? Or more importantly do you have any projections how the massive transfer of wealth from have to have not countries is going to save the planet?
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Oh goody yet another computer projection by people with an agenda. Does your church do revenue projections as well? Or more importantly do you have any projections how the massive transfer of wealth from have to have not countries is going to save the planet?

yup... there you are again... with your "NOAA agenda"! :mrgreen: I asked you a few posts back to qualify your repeated claims about "massive global wealth transfer". You ignored that request... asking again! Let's see you do it again, ignore the request again, hey!
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
yup... there you are again... with your "NOAA agenda"! :mrgreen: I asked you a few posts back to qualify your repeated claims about "massive global wealth transfer". You ignored that request... asking again! Let's see you do it again, ignore the request again, hey!

Try reading.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
I asked you a few posts back to qualify your repeated claims about "massive global wealth transfer". You ignored that request... asking again! Let's see you do it again, ignore the request again, hey!
yup... another taxi "runaway, runaway" move when repeatedly challenged to... put up! Standard Taxi Protocol!
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
you do realize that global production of CFC's did NOT end in 2010.

Plus, you are addressing ONLY CFC's.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,353
12,818
113
Low Earth Orbit
Another example of hysterical malakey " the amazon rainforests are the lungs of the planet supplying our oxygen".
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
How ironic, eh?



We were recently informed that proof is for alcohol and it isn't the business of the scientific community to provide any proof of AGW

Karl Popper: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,".