The Climate Change Deniers can go back to their holes now

[BenSisko]

When I wrote my post - I was talking about people like you.

Even when people far more educated and intelligent than you present you with clear evidence that man is causing climate change you still put your head in the ground and choose to be ignorant.

So why the Climategate emails to fudge the numbers? The temperature is not increasing.
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.140
Yet more embarrassing emails have been released by an unknown hacker or hackers that show the top climate scientists engaging more in political activism than in science. In many of the emails they seem to out right admit that they have a weak argument, but that didn't stop them propaganda.

Here are some quotes from one of the scientists to another.
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...lobal-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html

 

[blazejowski]

74% of all statistics are made up by the author...

39% of people know that as a fact!

 

[bcneil]

As I've noted before, denialists articles appear in reputable political and popular news publications, like Forbs and the Telegraph. They also appear in private web sites with unknown provenance like your first link. Please provide links to articles in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals that clearly state that global warming is not occurring as you have vehemently asserted.

Thats not fair, how can he possibly do that???

 

[BenSisko]

As I've noted before, denialists articles appear in reputable political and popular news publications, like Forbs and the Telegraph. They also appear in private web sites with unknown provenance like your first link. Please provide links to articles in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals that clearly state that global warming is not occurring as you have vehemently asserted.

97% of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere naturally, humans are the other 3%. Even if you cut it to zero it won't do ANYTHING. Then there's Climategate. End of story.

 

[bcneil]

97% of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere naturally, humans are the other 3%. Even if you cut it to zero it won't do ANYTHING. Then there's Climategate. End of story.

at what % would human co2 production have an effect if you think 3% isn't enough?
please use math to how the tipping point can be calculated.

 

[BenSisko]

at what % would human co2 production have an effect if you think 3% isn't enough?
please use math to how the tipping point can be calculated.

The point was we contribute next to nothing to the CO2 in the atmosphere. The solution apparently is to cut CO2 emissions. But that wont do anything even if you believe the fairy tale.

You guys keep skipping Climategate. Manipulating data is not scientific. And the EPA says CO2 is a pollutant........... that plants breathe......... and make oxygen with....... Doesn't make sense but I will trust the government that lies all the fucking time!? It's trendy to be a sheep.

 

[bcneil]

The point was we contribute next to nothing to the CO2 in the atmosphere. The solution apparently is to cut CO2 emissions. But that wont do anything even if you believe the fairy tale.

You guys keep skipping Climategate. Manipulating data is not scientific. And the EPA says CO2 is a pollutant........... that plants breathe......... and make oxygen with....... Doesn't make sense but I will trust the government that lies all the fucking time!? It's trendy to be a sheep.

so you can't answer my question, because you don't know how, fair enough.
please explain then how you determine 3% is not enough, and your methodology in this.....

As it is you introducing this 3% data, not me.

 

[BenSisko]

so you can't answer my question, because you don't know how, fair enough.
please explain then how you determine 3% is not enough, and your methodology in this.....

As it is you introducing this 3% data, not me.

Doesn't matter. Climategate PROVES insider manipulation.

 

[bcneil]

Doesn't matter. Climategate PROVES insider manipulation.

this is data you supplied, and make conclusions from!? yet you can't explain well......anything.

I am starting to think you have no science background at all

 

[bcneil]

And the EPA says CO2 is a pollutant........... that plants breathe......... and make oxygen with....... Doesn't make sense

laundry soap can also be a pollutant......how can that be, it cleans clothes so well.

 

[BenSisko]

this is data you supplied, and make conclusions from!? yet you can't explain well......anything.

I am starting to think you have no science background at all

So you can't debate Climategate at all?

So CO2 makes up 0.03% of total gases in the atmosphere, and we only contribute 3% to the 0.03%. We aren't effecting the temperature any time soon. Not to mention CO2 lags temperature changes by 600 years.

Do you believe the EPA that CO2 is a pollutant? LOL.

 

[BenSisko]

laundry soap can also be a pollutant......how can that be, it cleans clothes so well.

Its a chemical, so what if it cleans. Are you actually serious? Plants absorb that evil gas and make oxygen. You are actually going to compare a gas responsible for life on this planet..... to soap.

 

[bcneil]

Its a chemical, so what if it cleans. Are you actually serious? Plants absorb that evil gas and make oxygen. You are actually going to compare a gas responsible for life on this planet..... to soap.

co2 is a fund pollutant.

my example only shows how silly it is to base the decision of whether something is a pollutant base on some other use.
not scientific at all.
flies love piles of shit. i think it went over you head anyways.

 

[BenSisko]

co2 is a fund pollutant.

my example only shows how silly it is to base the decision of whether something is a pollutant base on some other use.
not scientific at all.
flies love piles of shit. i think it went over you head anyways.

Shit isn't a pollutant. It's waste. Your logic is pretty bad. Sad attempt to debate when you have no argument left?

And CLIMATEGATE. Still have nothing to say about that for 5 pages now...

 

[HankQuinlan]

Shit isn't a pollutant. It's waste. Your logic is pretty bad. Sad attempt to debate when you have no argument left?

And CLIMATEGATE. Still have nothing to say about that for 5 pages now...

You have proved that you are an idiot in another thread, and proved that you have no understanding of this issue in this thread. A waste can't be a pollutant? Christ....You want people to respond seriously to your posts?

Step away from the keyboard, please. There is enough shit in the world without you adding to it.

 

[BenSisko]

You have proved that you are an idiot in another thread, and proved that you have no understanding of this issue in this thread. A waste can't be a pollutant? Christ....You want people to respond seriously to your posts?

Step away from the keyboard, please. There is enough shit in the world without you adding to it.

Did bcneil send you to fight for him?


Of all the myths quoted, calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is the worst - it's simply is not true! Myth: CO2 is a pollutant. Fact: Totally false. We challenge you to prove otherwise. CO2 is in our every breath, in the carbonated sodas and waters that we drink and in the dry ice that helps us keep our food cold and safe. We breathe in 385 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects. We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die! The monitoring systems in U.S. submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years. CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 100 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees. Source: PlantsNeedCO2.org

 

[bcneil]

Shit isn't a pollutant. It's waste. Your logic is pretty bad. Sad attempt to debate when you have no argument left?

And CLIMATEGATE. Still have nothing to say about that for 5 pages now...

Once again my comparison of how something can have both positive and negative attributes, right over your head.

But this can't be so, so I think you are now being disingenuous. You are obviously very smart. I mean you have a greater understanding of climatology and environmental science than all the scientists with years of school and research in the field. And you were able to accomplish all this with no formal post secondary science I am assuming.
Congrats its an amazing feat, its like being better than any pro hockey player, without ever putting on skates. (Shit this comparison will go over your head too).

Debate??? What have you debated? You have made assumptions with no backing.
You claim 3% co2 increase caused by humans isn't enough to do anything. You have nothing to back this up, and simply say it doesn't matter how you conclude this.
When I ask what % would do anything......you....It doesn't matter.
These explanations should be childs play to someone with your "knowledge"
This is debate?

Peaceguy asked you to produce a peer reviewed scientific report supporting your claims.....Nope, newspapers and um youtube...
I can certainly produce many supporting climate change....but anyone with google can also find dozens.

Climategate, okay.....lets discuss it. So far your assumption is climategate disproves climate change.
Please explain how. Actually lets see if you even know what climategate is.

In your own words, describe what actual specific data is pertains too, as well as how many people you think are involved, and how it relates to science in general.

I once took my car to get new tires, the mechanic told me I needed new brakes.....however they were replaced 1600km earlier. So with your logic.....um cars dont need brakes....yes I am aware this will fly over too

 

[Mod-2]

I think we have all had enough of Silky`s newest handle. Considering the effort this idiot puts into coming to Perb you would think he would at least change up his schtick once in awhile.

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?62477-Perbatory&p=1300412&viewfull=1#post1300412

 

[Killdozer]

And in related environmental news, trolls have become an endangered species in Western Canada.

 

[blazejowski]

And in related environmental news, trolls have become an endangered species in Western Canada.

Well, they can be pesky to kill off - the mods have been trying to stamp this one out for 3 years now...