Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

[Dr Kynes]

1 hour + and still no guess on the third error.

it's really obvious too.

maybe pada and bucky shoudl stick to the humanities, opinion polls, wikipedia, flame wars and ascribing science to opinion polls.

Fact-Check-A-Palooza 2014 remains in play!

heres a hint: i cited a Methane and Co2 aggregate source as just Co2!

 

[UncleBuck]

1 hour + and still no guess on the third error.

it's really obvious too.

maybe pada and bucky shoudl stick to the humanities, opinion polls, wikipedia, flame wars and ascribing science to opinion polls.

Fact-Check-A-Palooza 2014 remains in play!

heres a hint: i cited a Methane and Co2 aggregate source as just Co2!

i've called out more than three lies from you today, why should i be interested in your errors?

by the way, it's a scientific poll which measures opinion.

just thought you needed further correction and thought that might stick, but you are pretty fucking hopeless.

 

[sheskunk]

 

[Dr Kynes]

i've called out more than three lies from you today, why should i be interested in your errors?

by the way, it's a scientific poll which measures opinion.

just thought you needed further correction and thought that might stick, but you are pretty fucking hopeless.

so what you are saying is, you cant find the glaring error i made in a previous citation, which you COULD have spotted readily if you had checked my sources, but you were to busy declaring my sources to be "right wing think tanks" to bother actually examining the material presented...

you could have just said you were too intellectually lazy to bother with reading citations, and i could have simply not provided them. naturally i would have provided them anyhow, cuz i like to be certain of my facts when i make an assertion

now, as to your claims of "calling me out on more than three lies" well thats a matter of OPINION.

your opinion is, anything i say is a lie if it disagrees with your established doctrines

MY opinion is, facts are facts, and your refusal to believe in them doesnt change their value or accuracy.

since i have backed up my assertions with a delightful melange' of factual assertions, scholarly citations, some pretty cool math, and some excruciatingly painful (for you) graphical representations of that data, i can see why your butthurt is so intense, and i understand why you wish to retreat to the safe and warm hugbox of opinion polls.

however, as deeply ensconced in that hugbox as you are, the facts still remain as trenchant as ever, and when you finally emerge from your echochamber chrysalis to infest another thread with the exact same assertions that have failed in this one, you will still be (at least) as wrong (who knows you may find a new way to be wrong tonight, your odds are good) as you are right now.

retreating from discussion when you are in error doesnt help a bit if the next time you surge forward, you maintain the same level of wrongness you display today.

so, in brief:
termites DO produce more co2 than humans (by a substantial margin)
heat DOES play more of a role in Co2 concentrations than human emissions (by a similarly large margin)
water vaour IS at least 500x more powerful in the greenhouse system than Co2
lefties STILL cant seem to do math
Ad Hominem attacks against a scientist's credibility without actually refuting his assertions STILL mean less than nothing
the three factual errors i made in this thread were found by ME, and two were corrected while the third (which is non-substantive) remains outstanding as a challenge to your professed expertise
you STILL cant argue a position without making baseless personal attacks against the opponent
AGW is STILL an unproven theory (and it's getting shakier every day)
and finally...
clowns fucking is STILL funny.

 

[Dr Kynes]

two hours have elapsed, and still not a single guess on the third, un-corrected citation error

Hint 1 : it's a co2 methane aggregate source cited as just co2
Hint 2 : it's Non-Substantive
Hint 3 : it's from a dot EDU source

 

[UncleBuck]

you were to busy declaring my sources to be "right wing think tanks"

the sydney institute is a right wing think tank that is funded by shell oil.

now, as to your claims of "calling me out on more than three lies" well thats a matter of OPINION.

nope.

i showed you the BLS numbers and california prices.

i still am waiting for a citation you claimed you provided.

forest fires do no cause global cooling.

CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.

termites do not produce more than 30 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, like humans do.

scientific polls that measure opinion are nott opinion polls.

more than 50% is not the same as less than 50%.

mauna loa was chosen by scientists for a reason, and your whisper campaigns are just another example of your attempts to confuse the issue.

yadda yadda yadda.

your opinion is, anything i say is a lie if it disagrees with your established doctrines

no, you lie even after i present you stone cold hard facts, like the price of apound of tomtoes or 12 oz of frozen OJ.

since i have backed up my assertions with a delightful melange' of factual assertions, scholarly citations, some pretty cool math, and some excruciatingly painful (for you) graphical representations of that data, i can see why your butthurt is so intense, and i understand why you wish to retreat to the safe and warm hugbox of opinion polls.

you cite political front groups and right wing think tanks.

you have not cited the "hundredfold" effect claim, nor the "forest fires cause global cooling" claims.

and i am not the one who puts the other on ignore, that's you. willful ignorance is YOUR thing, not mine.

it's a racist walmart stockboy against 34 national academies of science. i know who i have my money on.

 

[Padawanbater2]

it shouldnt matter if a scientist is conservative, liberal, communist, monarchist, christian, moslem, buddhist, atheist, or even FRENCH. if their science is valid it stands on their own.

You say leftists should stick to the "opinion sciences"

I show you evidence that clearly says otherwise

You say "it shouldn't matter"...

lol..

No, it shouldn't matter, and to real scientists who practice real science, it doesn't. You are not a real scientist and you don't practice real science, or understand how it works, what it generally is or how it's applied, as is demonstrated by your consistent denial of real science

if you cant dispute their findings with SCIENCE then you cant dispute their findings at all.

Nobody has disputed the conclusions of the IPCC except a small fraction of fanatics who don't practice or understand science

i have cited chinese researchers (despite their socialist proclivities) moslem scientists (despite their being of Terrorist Decent), lefty scientists, righty scientists, decline to state scientists, gay scientists, canadian scientists, etc, because their findings are good, no matter how they conduct their personal and political lives

Your citations include anyone you perceive to agree with you that AGW isn't a serious problem, even the report funded by NASA about how solar irradiance plays no significant role in climate change on Earth and has increased over the course of a staggering 24 years by .1%/decade! You thought that report was suggesting the Sun is the major factor because I'm guessing you read the headline and only a paragraph or two in.

The fact is that every citation you've listed to support your denial of ACC has a political or financial interest to keep people like you ignorant of reality, just like they did with tobacco. The ones who aren't clearly don't agree with you and in fact, like NASA, quite clearly agree with Buck and I (and 34 national science academies and the overwhelming majority of scientists). So clearly I got a nice big belly laugh when you actually attempted to use NASA to discredit ACC!

if a guy puts out a bucket, catches some rain, accurately measures the depth and records the time the storm began and ended, do his calculations of the rainfall become invalidated if it turns out he watches Jersey Shore on occasion?

if a guy spots a new exo-planet, does the planet become imaginary if the original discoverer likes to be spanked?

can a guy studying historical weather observations invalidate the data he is examining if it turns out he voted for Booo00o0ooosh back in 2000?

A more accurate analogy would be a high school history teacher who denies the holocaust

A math teacher that denies algebra

A biology teacher that denies evolution


The reason the overwhelming majority of scientists lean left is because the ideals and values of conservatives fly in the face of science, it's that simple. If I believe in Christianity and Jesus and the Bible and I'm studying to earn a biology degree, I either have to accept the facts that organisms evolve and suspend my belief in God, or ignore reality and continue to be a Christian. Creationism/Intelligent design are mutually exclusive with science, hence, why it doesn't belong... now apply that concept to people like you who deny the scientific consensus on ACC...

 

[Harrekin]

You say leftists should stick to the "opinion sciences"

I show you evidence that clearly says otherwise

You say "it shouldn't matter"...

lol..

No, it shouldn't matter, and to real scientists who practice real science, it doesn't. You are not a real scientist and you don't practice real science, or understand how it works, what it generally is or how it's applied, as is demonstrated by your consistent denial of real science



Nobody has disputed the conclusions of the IPCC except a small fraction of fanatics who don't practice or understand science



Your citations include anyone you perceive to agree with you that AGW isn't a serious problem, even the report funded by NASA about how solar irradiance plays no significant role in climate change on Earth and has increased over the course of a staggering 24 years by .1%/decade! You thought that report was suggesting the Sun is the major factor because I'm guessing you read the headline and only a paragraph or two in.

The fact is that every citation you've listed to support your denial of ACC has a political or financial interest to keep people like you ignorant of reality, just like they did with tobacco. The ones who aren't clearly don't agree with you and in fact, like NASA, quite clearly agree with Buck and I (and 34 national science academies and the overwhelming majority of scientists). So clearly I got a nice big belly laugh when you actually attempted to use NASA to discredit ACC!



A more accurate analogy would be a high school history teacher who denies the holocaust

A math teacher that denies algebra

A biology teacher that denies evolution

The reason the overwhelming majority of scientists lean left is because the ideals and values of conservatives fly in the face of science, it's that simple. If I believe in Christianity and Jesus and the Bible and I'm studying to earn a biology degree, I either have to accept the facts that organisms evolve and suspend my belief in God, or ignore reality and continue to be a Christian. Creationism/Intelligent design are mutually exclusive with science, hence, why it doesn't belong... now apply that concept to people like you who deny the scientific consensus on ACC...

Just cos they voted Obama instead of Mitt-Paul (and before him John Mc Palin) does not make them Democrats, its makes the better at picking the less shitty apple.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I am very glad you brought that up.
Go back to that hyperphysics link I provided, and enter the two lower peak values for CO2, and tell me what temperature it spits out
Then you'll understand why the flame disappears.
That was the big revelation I had last night when looking at this..

Lol so if I hop on one foot while rubbing my head and squinting upside down thru a toilet tube I'll be able to see what you worked out all on your own that
"Co2 by definition can't cause warming"

You should mail the scientists at nasa with your revaluation of co2 properties they'd enjoy the laugh........

 

[ginjawarrior]

and what is the concentration of Co2 in that tube ?

Irrelevant experiment was nothing more than showing co2 infrared absorbing properties....

what would be the result if the tube contained the same levels of water vapour or methane, or ozone?

Red herring

Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas, and appears in concentrations of 0.035%
water vapour ozone and methane are much better greenhouse gasses, and water vapour is 100x more abundant in the atmosphere

Did you have a point?

nobody argued Co2 is NOT a "greenhouse gas"

Who you arguing against? Care to quote me saying somebody had said that?

in fact ALL gases are "greenhouse gasses" since all of them can trap and hold heat as a result of their status as Matter.

It's the infrared absorption that makes a greenhouse gas that you don't understand that speaks volumes about you ability in this debate

how much of the candle's heat would have reached his camera if he had filled that tube with "Anthropogenic Greenhouse Jello"?

Frothy howling at the moon Keynes? How unlike you

 

[ginjawarrior]

 

[Red1966]

You say leftists should stick to the "opinion sciences"

I show you evidence that clearly says otherwise

You say "it shouldn't matter"...

lol..

No, it shouldn't matter, and to real scientists who practice real science, it doesn't. You are not a real scientist and you don't practice real science, or understand how it works, what it generally is or how it's applied, as is demonstrated by your consistent denial of real science



Nobody has disputed the conclusions of the IPCC except a small fraction of fanatics who don't practice or understand science



Your citations include anyone you perceive to agree with you that AGW isn't a serious problem, even the report funded by NASA about how solar irradiance plays no significant role in climate change on Earth and has increased over the course of a staggering 24 years by .1%/decade! You thought that report was suggesting the Sun is the major factor because I'm guessing you read the headline and only a paragraph or two in.

The fact is that every citation you've listed to support your denial of ACC has a political or financial interest to keep people like you ignorant of reality, just like they did with tobacco. The ones who aren't clearly don't agree with you and in fact, like NASA, quite clearly agree with Buck and I (and 34 national science academies and the overwhelming majority of scientists). So clearly I got a nice big belly laugh when you actually attempted to use NASA to discredit ACC!



A more accurate analogy would be a high school history teacher who denies the holocaust

A math teacher that denies algebra

A biology teacher that denies evolution


The reason the overwhelming majority of scientists lean left is because the ideals and values of conservatives fly in the face of science, it's that simple. If I believe in Christianity and Jesus and the Bible and I'm studying to earn a biology degree, I either have to accept the facts that organisms evolve and suspend my belief in God, or ignore reality and continue to be a Christian. Creationism/Intelligent design are mutually exclusive with science, hence, why it doesn't belong... now apply that concept to people like you who deny the scientific consensus on ACC...

From what you just quoted about NASA, they do support his viewpoint. Many biologists are Christians, so your "logic" is obviously flawed. But, you know......science!!!

 

[Ra$p0tin]

it's actually a SCIENTIFIC POLL which measures opinion.

but it sounds so much better when you try to dishonestly diminish it with you sleight of tongue.

you lie and deceive way too often to have anything valid worth saying.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black..

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I will live entirely on a diet of quasi-erudite, arm-chair scientists, after the fall of civilization

 

[Dr Kynes]

Irrelevant experiment was nothing more than showing co2 infrared absorbing properties....

Red herring

Did you have a point?

Who you arguing against? Care to quote me saying somebody had said that?

It's the infrared absorption that makes a greenhouse gas that you don't understand that speaks volumes about you ability in this debate

Frothy howling at the moon Keynes? How unlike you

hmmm yesss...

irrelevant experiment is doubly irrelevant because it contained no useful data for comparison

yes i had a point, and it should be obvious.
a gas that absorbs irnfrared radiation 5x bettter and appears in concetrations 100x higher would naturally have MUCH MORE impact on the climate than co2.
and it does.
the real queation is, do YOU have a point?

ohh my, so the power of a gass like say.. NITROGEN and OZONE and Water vapour and EVERY gas in the atmosphere to trap irnfrared radiation and as a result of their status as MATTER to hold heat energy somehow brings us back to Co2 as the "prime mover" in climate?
yeah, thats pretty dumb.

who am i arguing with? bucky and pada both insinuated that i dont believe Co2 has any power as a greenhouse gas, when in fact it clearly does, just a very small one

moon howling? seems like im arguing from evidence while you are making specious assertions and posting dopey cartoons.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You say leftists should stick to the "opinion sciences"

I show you evidence that clearly says otherwise

You say "it shouldn't matter"...

lol..

No, it shouldn't matter, and to real scientists who practice real science, it doesn't. You are not a real scientist and you don't practice real science, or understand how it works, what it generally is or how it's applied, as is demonstrated by your consistent denial of real science



Nobody has disputed the conclusions of the IPCC except a small fraction of fanatics who don't practice or understand science



Your citations include anyone you perceive to agree with you that AGW isn't a serious problem, even the report funded by NASA about how solar irradiance plays no significant role in climate change on Earth and has increased over the course of a staggering 24 years by .1%/decade! You thought that report was suggesting the Sun is the major factor because I'm guessing you read the headline and only a paragraph or two in.

The fact is that every citation you've listed to support your denial of ACC has a political or financial interest to keep people like you ignorant of reality, just like they did with tobacco. The ones who aren't clearly don't agree with you and in fact, like NASA, quite clearly agree with Buck and I (and 34 national science academies and the overwhelming majority of scientists). So clearly I got a nice big belly laugh when you actually attempted to use NASA to discredit ACC!



A more accurate analogy would be a high school history teacher who denies the holocaust

A math teacher that denies algebra

A biology teacher that denies evolution

The reason the overwhelming majority of scientists lean left is because the ideals and values of conservatives fly in the face of science, it's that simple. If I believe in Christianity and Jesus and the Bible and I'm studying to earn a biology degree, I either have to accept the facts that organisms evolve and suspend my belief in God, or ignore reality and continue to be a Christian. Creationism/Intelligent design are mutually exclusive with science, hence, why it doesn't belong... now apply that concept to people like you who deny the scientific consensus on ACC...

theres no such thin as "opinion sciences" only Scientific Opinions, what you refer to as "opinion sciences" is actually OPINION POLLS which are as scientific as counting up facebook likes to set government policy

the humanities are soft "sciences" and really have no basis in empirical evidence.

they rely on feels, not facts.

feels are how lefties interact with the world, and feels are all lefties are good at, so move on back to chattering about franco-prussian pottery in the 18th century, and the study of renaissance german pornographic lithographs.

real science doesnt have time for your bullshit, and doesnt care about your feels.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

theres no such thin as "opinion sciences" only Scientific Opinions, what you refer to as "opinion sciences" is actually OPINION POLLS which are as scientific as counting up facebook likes to set government policy

the humanities are soft "sciences" and really have no basis in empirical evidence.

they rely on feels, not facts.

feels are how lefties interact with the world, and feels are all lefties are good at, so move on back to chattering about franco-prussian pottery in the 18th century, and the study of renaissance german pornographic lithographs.

real science doesnt have time for your bullshit, and doesnt care about your feels.

no.......science will be based on consensus, not facts.....under UN Agenda 21. facts are not "sustainable."

*returns to digging*

 

[Dr Kynes]

Aaaand it looks like bucky and pada's expertise in climate science as interpretive dance fails to locate the erroneous citation.

maybe ginja will use his powers to discover it.
it really shouldnt be that difficult.

 

[ginjawarrior]

hmmm yesss...

irrelevant experiment is doubly irrelevant because it contained no useful data for comparison

It contained exactly enough data for the point it was trying to make.....

yes i had a point, and it should be obvious.
a gas that absorbs irnfrared radiation 5x bettter and appears in concetrations 100x higher would naturally have MUCH MORE impact on the climate than co2.
and it does.

Your point?

ohh my, so the power of a gass like say.. NITROGEN and OZONE and Water vapour and EVERY gas in the atmosphere to trap irnfrared radiation and as a result of their status as MATTER to hold heat energy somehow brings us back to Co2 as the "prime mover" in climate?
yeah, thats pretty dumb.

Nitrogen does not absorb infrared radiation

You really really should educate yourself on such basics before entering a discussion like this...

who am i arguing with? bucky and pada both insinuated that i dont believe Co2 has any power as a greenhouse gas, when in fact it clearly does, just a very small one

I am not buck or pada... you ranted all that to a quote from me

What was it padding to make it seem like your post had substance?

moon howling? seems like im arguing from evidence while you are making specious assertions and posting dopey cartoons.

hooowll......

 

[ginjawarrior]

Aaaand it looks like bucky and pada's expertise in climate science as interpretive dance fails to locate the erroneous citation.

maybe ginja will use his powers to discover it.
it really shouldnt be that difficult.

I don't need to dance for you to show your posts are wrong

Your shocking ignorance does the job perfectly well on its own