• Temperatures?

  • The official home of shit-posting, cuck-calling, and dumbfucking.
The official home of shit-posting, cuck-calling, and dumbfucking.
 #123392  by BDR529
 Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:35 am
Wow...dare to post something that goes against the grain and our resident climate cops are quick to try and beat you down by calling you names and connecting your data to "religious fanatics". Classic. I expect this shit from kocker...he's pretty much a serial sniper in all of these threads anyway. Always trying to attack and assault everyone who he disagrees with (which is pretty much everyone except his many aliases). Ditto Kamacho who goes from civil conversation to name calling in a half a post.

That's fine....you tards believe whatever you want. I can find just as much empirical data and scientists to back the counter point to your argument as you can produce to back up your claims. So where does that leave us? Right where were at...you believe what you want to and everyone else will do the same. I should have known better than to enter this thread anyway...especially with you two hanging around in it.
JohnnyP liked this
 #123393  by JohnnyP
 Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:38 am
Image"Last year, Greenland had their fifth largest surface ice mass gain on record, gaining nearly 600 billion tons of ice."

Melting huh?

Btw, Greenland has the most glaciers in the northern hemisphere.

Would someone think of the polar bears??? 😂😂😂

Added in 1 minute 12 seconds:
Most of you dolts need to stick to your day jobs.
 #123395  by Kumacho
 Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:55 am
BDR529 wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:35 am
Wow...dare to post something that goes against the grain and our resident climate cops are quick to try and beat you down by calling you names and connecting your data to "religious fanatics". Classic. I expect this shit from kocker...he's pretty much a serial sniper in all of these threads anyway. Always trying to attack and assault everyone who he disagrees with (which is pretty much everyone except his many aliases). Ditto Kamacho who goes from civil conversation to name calling in a half a post.

That's fine....you tards believe whatever you want. I can find just as much empirical data and scientists to back the counter point to your argument as you can produce to back up your claims. So where does that leave us? Right where were at...you believe what you want to and everyone else will do the same. I should have known better than to enter this thread anyway...especially with you two hanging around in it.
No, no you can't. How could you even make such a retarded statement? No, I mean seriously, what the fuck were you thinking?

97% of the scientific community (NOT FUCKING POLITICAL COMMUNITY) agree and accept climate change. How in the holy fuck can you come up with just as much scientific data when only fucking 3% disagree?

Wow! Those 3% must be putting out a lot of papers.

Do you realize just how crazy your statement was? I'd say no, since you seem to make broad sweeping stupid fucking statements. You know, like I'm a fucking lefty. Moron.

The following is the very short list of Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections. These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.
Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.

There's not enough room here to list all the scientists who are in agreement and have published peer reviewed papers on the subject.

I just can't understand how you can ignore and even attempt to debate the mountains of substantiated data by an overwhelmingly large percentage of the scientific community.
Last edited by Kumacho on Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #123398  by Hakik
 Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:02 pm
JohnnyP wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:39 am
Image"Last year, Greenland had their fifth largest surface ice mass gain on record, gaining nearly 600 billion tons of ice."

Melting huh?

Btw, Greenland has the most glaciers in the northern hemisphere.

Would someone think of the polar bears??? 😂😂😂

Added in 1 minute 12 seconds:
Most of you dolts need to stick to your day jobs.

LOL @ having no ability to interpret data. You realize that graph only shows a brief period of time when Greenland gained more mass between 2016-2017, while all the previous years it's been going down. Way to dig for a brief moment where there was a small increase in ice, when the rest of the time it's been melting away.

If you zoom out and take more than just a year into context this is what's been happening to the ice on Greenland over a longer period of time:



Image

Image

And this is where that sudden little peak in ice stands (marked with a star) compared to previous years:

Image


But forget graphs, and just one year comparison. Here's the satellite mapping of what's actually been happening on the ground in the span of just 10 years:

Image
 #123399  by cunnalingus
 Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:05 pm
But but but but but my graph and and and al gore but but but science and and and politicians they they they *shits pants* BRIANS FAT MOTHERFUCKERS
 #123400  by JohnnyP
 Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:05 pm
Kumacho wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:55 am
BDR529 wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:35 am
Wow...dare to post something that goes against the grain and our resident climate cops are quick to try and beat you down by calling you names and connecting your data to "religious fanatics". Classic. I expect this shit from kocker...he's pretty much a serial sniper in all of these threads anyway. Always trying to attack and assault everyone who he disagrees with (which is pretty much everyone except his many aliases). Ditto Kamacho who goes from civil conversation to name calling in a half a post.

That's fine....you tards believe whatever you want. I can find just as much empirical data and scientists to back the counter point to your argument as you can produce to back up your claims. So where does that leave us? Right where were at...you believe what you want to and everyone else will do the same. I should have known better than to enter this thread anyway...especially with you two hanging around in it.
No, no you can't. How could you even make such a retarded statement? No, I mean seriously, what the fuck were you thinking?

97% of the scientific community (NOT FUCKING POLITICAL COMMUNITY) agree and accept climate change. How in the holy fuck can you come up with just as much scientific data when only fucking 3% disagree?

Wow! Those 3% must be putting out a lot of papers.

Do you realize just how crazy your statement was? I'd say no, since you seem to make broad sweeping stupid fucking statements. You know, like I'm a fucking lefty. Moron.
No, 97% of the scientific community doesn't agree about anthropogenic climate change. That's another lie.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... 100-wrong/

 #123401  by Kumacho
 Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:06 pm
JohnnyP wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:05 pm
Kumacho wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:55 am
BDR529 wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:35 am
Wow...dare to post something that goes against the grain and our resident climate cops are quick to try and beat you down by calling you names and connecting your data to "religious fanatics". Classic. I expect this shit from kocker...he's pretty much a serial sniper in all of these threads anyway. Always trying to attack and assault everyone who he disagrees with (which is pretty much everyone except his many aliases). Ditto Kamacho who goes from civil conversation to name calling in a half a post.

That's fine....you tards believe whatever you want. I can find just as much empirical data and scientists to back the counter point to your argument as you can produce to back up your claims. So where does that leave us? Right where were at...you believe what you want to and everyone else will do the same. I should have known better than to enter this thread anyway...especially with you two hanging around in it.
No, no you can't. How could you even make such a retarded statement? No, I mean seriously, what the fuck were you thinking?

97% of the scientific community (NOT FUCKING POLITICAL COMMUNITY) agree and accept climate change. How in the holy fuck can you come up with just as much scientific data when only fucking 3% disagree?

Wow! Those 3% must be putting out a lot of papers.

Do you realize just how crazy your statement was? I'd say no, since you seem to make broad sweeping stupid fucking statements. You know, like I'm a fucking lefty. Moron.
No, 97% of the scientific community doesn't agree about anthropogenic climate change. That's another lie.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstei ... 100-wrong/

97% of peer reviewed papers agree... Can't argue facts? Let's split hairs on grammar and get demeaning calling people leftists and sheep. Pretty fucking cheesy (and let me say it again, intellectually dishonest).
 #123402  by BDR529
 Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:19 pm
Personally, I don't care if you take a shit and fall back in it. There's not even a consensus on the 97% number your ranting and raving about. Dude, you go from zero to holy-rat-shit in about 10 seconds...which is why no one wants to get into a discussion with you. But that's fine...jump and scream to your heart's content. After all, you're miles ahead of the "mouth breathers" that inhabit all the states where you don't live.

You may not be a lefty...but you are an asshole. Just saying...
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 25