Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The TRUTH about climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Medwards View Post
    Ever read what you write and look in the mirror and find it funny how applicable it is to you? Are you that naive and ignorant?
    All the time. Even in this case. I still want to know why NASA is changing the data from operational weather stations. Your cheap slander from a liar blog isn't a scientific answer.

    In fact, you respond frequently to my posts but almost never post anything close to science. Is this what you think science Is? Slander on a liar blog?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 27-06-2018, 10:10 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
      Originally posted by Medwards View Post
      They talk about science all day long but completely ignore it.

      NASA fudges that data of a perfectly operational weather station by a full degree of warming.

      Medwards refutes it by ignoring the topic and reposts cheap slander from a liar blog.

      " Climate chànge" is what it is. Fake data, lies, and slandering anyone who questions it. The advocates call this "science."

      I recommend you all go to desmogblog and look at that site for what it is. A cesspool of slandering anyone who questions climate change. Fake science any high school kid could see through.

      And nothing about why NASA fudged the data of a perfectly operational weather station.
      So are you going to actually refute what was said and show how it was wrong, or are you just going to throw out "Liar Blog" and call it a day?

      Remember, you're the one trying to show people the TRUTH, the onus is on you to refute the climate change believers.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
        Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
        Originally posted by Medwards View Post
        They talk about science all day long but completely ignore it.

        NASA fudges that data of a perfectly operational weather station by a full degree of warming.

        Medwards refutes it by ignoring the topic and reposts cheap slander from a liar blog.

        " Climate chànge" is what it is. Fake data, lies, and slandering anyone who questions it. The advocates call this "science."

        I recommend you all go to desmogblog and look at that site for what it is. A cesspool of slandering anyone who questions climate change. Fake science any high school kid could see through.

        And nothing about why NASA fudged the data of a perfectly operational weather station.
        So are you going to actually refute what was said and show how it was wrong, or are you just going to throw out "Liar Blog" and call it a day?

        Remember, you're the one trying to show people the TRUTH, the onus is on you to refute the climate change believers.
        No. You got it wrong. You advocates are always screaming about "science". You prefer a liar website blog over a published PhD scientist?

        Don't talk about "science" if all you can do is cut and paste from liar website blogs.
        "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

        Comment


        • 99.99999% of scientist around the world agree that global warming and climate change are being extremely accelerated by man-made CO2 emissions, yet you refute all that because a very small percentage disagree, and you call everything that refutes your entrenched position as 'liar blogs'...






          Then you state "Don't talk about "science" if all you can do is cut and paste from liar website blogs" which is terrible funny, because just about every single post of yours has been a copy/paste of the same material over and over and over again... I mean how many times have you posted that same graph that's easily debunked but yet you persist?



          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Medwards View Post
            99.99999% of scientist around the world agree that global warming and climate change are being extremely accelerated by man-made CO2 emissions, yet you refute all that because a very small percentage disagree, and you call everything that refutes your entrenched position as 'liar blogs'...

            Then you state "Don't talk about "science" if all you can do is cut and paste from liar website blogs" which is terrible funny, because just about every single post of yours has been a copy/paste of the same material over and over and over again... I mean how many times have you posted that same graph that's easi
            Where'd you get this consensus data from? Another liar website blog? Yes.

            Like I said, you advocates scream about "science", but ignore it.

            Let's actually look at the science, instead of a liar blog.........................

            The American Meteorological Society polled their members to see if they believed global warming was mostly man made and got this result.........

            According to a new survey of AMS members, only 29% think the change is "largely or entirely due to human activity".

            29% think the change is "largely or entirely due to human activity", this lines up with YOUR statement on climate change that "climate change are being extremely accelerated", so according to the AMS's poll, only 29% of their members believe it.

            http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/new-sur...limate-change/

            That's not even close to a 99.9999999999% consensus. 71% of AMS members are deniers.
            Last edited by MrCombust; 29-06-2018, 09:40 AM.
            "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

            Comment


            • The TRUTH. Nobody should believe in "climate change" this morning

              The weather network predicted 12mm of rain last night. Using software simulations, and decades of computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict weather events accurately within hours.

              "Climate change" mongers think they can use software simulations to predict 100 years into the future?
              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

              Comment


              • Without software, but with just a few years of experience I could predict that in a few months temperatures will cool and snow will fall. However, I can’t predict the temperature tomorrow.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                  The weather network predicted 12mm of rain last night. Using software simulations, and decades of computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict weather events accurately within hours.

                  "Climate change" mongers think they can use software simulations to predict 100 years into the future?
                  you want us to believe you are a purveyor of the TRUTH when it comes to climate change but you don’t understand the difference between local weather and global climate??? really???
                  "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                    The weather network predicted 12mm of rain last night. Using software simulations, and decades of computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict weather events accurately within hours.

                    "Climate change" mongers think they can use software simulations to predict 100 years into the future?
                    This shows your complete lack of understanding on how weather forecasting works, and weakens any argument you have made in the past and the future. However, I'm Jacks complete lack of surprise.

                    Some TRUTH for you to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probab..._precipitation

                    Warning: real scientists ahead.
                    Last edited by Medwards; 03-07-2018, 08:25 AM.
                    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                      The weather network predicted 12mm of rain last night. Using software simulations, and decades of computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict weather events accurately within hours.

                      "Climate change" mongers think they can use software simulations to predict 100 years into the future?
                      This post should be stickied so that anyone new coming to the thread can disregard anything you say.

                      Comment


                      • The TRUTH. Are you upset about clear cutting, logging, and deforestation?

                        Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

                        Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
                        "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                        Comment


                        • when confronted, just tune them out. La-La-La. Disappear for a few days. Pretend like it doesn't exist.
                          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrCombust View Post
                            Calculations based on empirical evidence show that enhancement of plant growth by man made CO2 is larger than all other negative effects put together.

                            Environmentalists may need to rethink thier philosophy.
                            wtf does that mean?

                            that's like telling someone not to bother quitting smoking because the negative effects of everything from heart disease to stroke to bad breath to innumerable cancers to burning your house down aren't as large as the measurable enhanced ability to achieve and maintain weight loss just because that's the only effect you can actually measure on a daily basis...

                            combine that with the fallacy of your only measuring the impact of one thing - like co2 - and not measuring the concurrent impact of others - like higher winds or more rain or less rain or longer or shorter growing seasons - and you're only proving how much you don't know about the TRUTH, not how much you do know.

                            although i have to give you credit for finding new and incredible ways to reduce your credibility. you know, using expressions like "calculations based on empirical evidence" to support your opinion while insisting that "calculations based on empirical evidence" that don't agree with your opinion are simply the fodder of liar blogs and fake news groups like nasa...
                            "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                            Comment


                            • The TRUTH. Top climate advocates and skeptics debate......

                              In this video 2 top climate change advocates, and 2 top skeptics state their case and answer questions.


                              Watch the advocates and listen to what they say, their case is mostly about threatening people. The only assessment of climate change you ever get from advocates is "we're all going to die". Also Michael Mann defends his hockey stick graph and says our current temperatures are higher than they've been in 10,000 years. In some of my posts you'll see a video of Michael Mann lying to a senate committee on global warming. In another of my posts you'll see that Michael Mann's software will create a hockey stick graph out of random data. In other posts I put up you'll see ice core records showing a 3,000 year warm period called the Holocene in which the 1km thick Athabasca glacier used to be a forest. I don't know why anybody would believe anything this guy says. Canada's Patrick Moore directly addresses, and refutes, almost everything Michael Mann says.....................….


                              
                              "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                              Comment


                              • The TRUTH. Climate change lawsuits thrown out of court

                                California, and other states, initiated lawsuits against big oil for "climate change" damages. Saying "climate change" is causing unprecedented sea level rise, storms, floods, and droughts. They wanted to sue Exxon and others for damages.

                                Some of the lawsuits have been thrown out of court...……….

                                "Judge tosses out climate suit against big oil"

                                "A federal judge just tossed out a lawsuit brought against the world's largest oil companies for selling fuels they knew would boost sea levels and disrupt the global climate."

                                https://mashable.com/2018/06/26/clim.../#Mvyo7PfuvPqx
                                "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X