Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Were this not so very serious a problem, your view would be laughable.
You are the real danger and your skewed view of reality will hurt us all.
You will burn in the hell you've helped to create while I rest at peace in the cool earth.
eyeno wrote:What do the IPCC people say about elephants in the living room like the effects of sunspots and solar minimums on climate?
eyeno wrote:I think i've heard wintler2 reference it and I know he wasn't keen on the idea but I don't remember what the IPCC type opinion is. ...
wintler wrote:If the sun has been less active why are we still warmer than average? (in response to BenDs post of Daily Mails how-to-lie-with-graphs)
Ben D wrote:What's more, fyi adjusting the data by subtracting 'estimated' impacts on factors that affect temperature readings to recreate the adjusted graph is not the same thing as creating a trend line, it's just massaging the figures to hide the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and thus impacts very much on the discussion taking place about there not being any warming for the last 14 years, and thus keep the CAGW/AGW scam going a little longer.
Iamwhoiam wrote...
Were this not so very serious a problem, your view would be laughable.
Sounder wrote:
Really, so would you say that GW is a bigger threat to human life than is the meltdown at Fukushima combined with a half dozen other major ways that we are poisoning the planet? What I consider laughable is 'environmentalists' having a boner for a common gas while not showing much concern at all about examining let alone controlling the use of toxins. Hey, who could use a few hundred tons of DU while we democratize your ass.
Sounder wrote:
Yes well, and I am welcome to think that it is the self-righteousness of folk like you that creates this hell, where the substance of the category 'environmentalist' is eviscerated on the alter of a false imperative that causes people to act in a way that is directly counter to their own values.
(And you have the nerve to talk about idiots.)
wintler2 wrote:
If you don't even read the replies, it is hard to believe that you proceed in good faith. My question is intended to highlight the first (of many) logic problem with the "AGW=sunspots" myth. Can i invite you to attempt an answer, BenD has so far avoided doing so.
Iamwhomiam wrote: You will burn in the hell you've helped to create while I rest at peace in the cool earth.
Myalba (Tibet, Tibetan? In the Esoteric philosophy of Northern Buddhism, the name of our Earth, called Hell for those who reincarnate in it for punishment. Exoterically, Myalba is translated a Hell.
DrEvil wrote:And you also shoot yourself in the leg with the two graphs you posted above (the ones without any links to the source..), because they both show a clear warming trend.
(Sorry in advance BenD, it's not personal, but you're clearly either willfully misunderstanding wintler2 and friends, or you really don't understand what it is they're saying.)
Ben D wrote:.. Because once there is an admission that 1998 is the warmest year on record, it follows logically that there has been no increase in global warming statistically for the last 14 years.
Rory wrote:Ben D wrote:
Just my thoughts here as a neutral observer:
And, by the way, you're a snide cunt
wintler2 wrote:Ben D wrote:.. Because once there is an admission that 1998 is the warmest year on record, it follows logically that there has been no increase in global warming statistically for the last 14 years.
Nonsense. You are incapable of grasping the meaning of Trend, or of recognising your incapacity.
Ben D wrote: you may like to look up the topic of cognitive dissonance.
Rory wrote:Ben D wrote: you may like to look up the topic of cognitive dissonance.
Why? Do you feel bad about spreading disinfo, lies and oilman propaganda, even though you know the planet is being fucked by them?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests