errr Global Warming?

[Rorschach]

He's not ignoring his credentials... he's saying that even with credentials, your numbers still need to be confirmed.

Really....

He did ignore his credentials and the parts of the article I reposted for him. You alarmists often cite or demand credentials so your hypocrisy here is no surprise.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Here's what you were claiming.

and that some of the warming has been absorbed by the Pacific Ocean, and in turn raised the temp of the Pacific Ocean.

Correct, I did.

I told you it had been debunked

Correct, and you were full of shit.

NASA tells you it has been debunked

Not on this planet moonbat.
NASA says Global Warming is fact and continues unabated.
That the global average sea surface temps are 0.7C higher than they were a few decades ago,
that global atmospheric temps are 1.7C higher than they were a few decades ago, and the deep ocean
temps remain virtually unchanged.

Next you'll be claiming NASA says global warming isn't real because the temp on Pluto is the same as it has been for decades.

As for the 18 year and no dsignificant warming, why do you think they are looking at the oceans for you stupid fuck?
They are looking for the heat that they think should have been in the fucking atmosphere.

Correct grogan, and the upper levels of the oceans show it.
Y'see if you comprehended the most basic elements of physics, you'd know from personal experience that
when you heat something the outer surface absorbs some of the heat and radiates a portion back,
while the inner depths of that something takes longer to heat.

Meanwhile the Arctic ocean, which isn't so deep has warmed enough to thaw the undersea floor methane clathrates.
Meaning we are already in a Runaway Global Warming scenario, and have been since 2007.

Seriously, I find it tedious debating with a fucking moron who refuses to educate himself.

So? Why should I care what someone who refuses to acknowledge basic physics finds tedious?

Anyway, we're going to cook this parasite infested planet and there is nothing anybody can do to stop us.

Maybe you could call in Batfink's enemies for help ...

Episode 3 "Ebenezer the Freezer"

Hugo and Ebenezer the Freezer plan to freeze the entire city, using a missile loaded with freezing gas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Batfink_episodes

[IQS.RLOW]

Here you go swampy, a perfect representation of you.
You can be president of the Sierra Club considering you have answered questions exactly like he did.

[Super Nova]

I still see nothing in the scientific media about this revelation.

Why is that?

How long do you think we will have to wait for the architecture of climate models to be proved to be fundamentally wrong?

[Rorschach]

Gee how long?
You alarmists have jumped the gun many times already... warming, cooling, warming, dimming, warming.... oh heck, let's just call it climate change... that went on for decades... we have a pause that has been going on for 18 years re the warming you lot are in denial about it even if the alarmists propaganda machine the IPCC even acknowledge it.
You deny opinions of others and demand peer reviews even when many are disregarded by the keepers of the climate church and say nothing when well credentialed people are ignored or ridiculed by them.
Your side seeks to lie and cheat about the science yet you all have those blinkers on and even ridicule those who seek to post opinions based on common sense, experience and logic.
You lot jump at the merest deviation in weather conditions and call it proof of man made warming or climate change.
The hypocrisy is mind boggling.
Suddenly you demand peer reviewed results of papers that are still being finalized... oh dear they are not here they haven't been peer reviewed they cant be true, cannot be based on science and the ridicule continues.
Wake up to yourselves...
The Models are wrong, they have always been wrong and yes you may agree and disagree and waffle, pontificate and flip-flop all you like about that but... we have always stated the facts.

Patience as they say is a virtue... and even though we've been very patient... you people keep hammering away ignoring facts and ridiculing those who don't follow the alarmist religion. How many more years do we need to be patient?

[Outlaw Yogi]

Here you go swampy, a perfect representation of you.
You can be president of the Sierra Club considering you have answered questions exactly like he did.

Nah, sorry matey, he wears a tie, and I have a flat top hair cut.
Besides, I'm not interested in who he is or what the Sierra club is, says or thinks.
So didn't bother watching the vid.
I think and rationalise for myself regardless of the topic/issue/subject.

As I stated to Rawsack recently in this thread, I don't believe CO2 is causing Global Warming.
I believe CO2 has a minor impact on the phenomena, and that NO (nitrous oxide - 240+ times more potent GHG than CO2)
released every time a farmer fertilises their vege crops and Precession of the Equinoxes/Axial Precession play a far greater
part in the process. But there is something I believe CO2 is responsible for regarding aspects of this topic.

Back in 2005, a smarter man than you (I say that because rather than dismiss what he didn't understand, he'd ask a pertinent question) going by the name of Uncanny Valley (now Uncanny Hengman) who was a regular contributor to this forum, asked "How could CO2 affect the weather?" .. Which is a good question.
I took up the challenge by answering with my own rationale.

I wrote "Consider the absorbent properties of another form of impure carbon - charcoal.
Now what do you think adding extra carbon to the atmosphere is likely to do?
Wouldn't it make clouds more absorbent? Thus having greater water holding capacity, and therefor rather than release rain
while interacting with land forms as clouds generally do, hold onto that vapour longer untill the weight factor becomes critical?
If so this would mean drought would be more common and tend to last longer, and that torrential downpours would become less common but more severe/extreme/bigger?"

Being a reasonable man he got the point. Since that time the weather seems to be proving my theory correct.

Anyway, like I keep saying, Global Warming has been happening for 18,000 years since the end of the last glacial maximum,
so anyone that says Global Warming isn't happening is an idiot.
Disputing the cause of the increase in the pace of Global Warming in recent decades is fair if you have a valid feasible cause
other than GHGs, but you don't, so your argument/s have no foundation.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Gee how long?
You alarmists have jumped the gun many times already... warming, cooling, warming, dimming, warming.... oh heck, let's just call it climate change...

Bullshit!

It has only been the GW denialists making claims of cooling or dimming.

The alarmists as you call them have consistently claimed one thing - "The planet is warming"
And posit right or wrong that CO2 is the cause.

Y'see most of you denialists and alarmists seem to be completely ignorant that Global Warming theory
and CO2 as the primary cause has been around since the end of the 19th century, when it was noticed
temps were gradually rising.
At this time the Eugenics debate was raging and the do gooders like the Fabian Society proposed that
Global Warming was a white supremacist conspiracy to wipe out the poor and coloured races.

Since that time Eugenics has faded into the past but Global Warming has continued and CO2 is still getting the blame
despite conflicting evidence suggesting NO and/or Axial Precession to have a greater impact on the phenomena.

[Outlaw Yogi]

He's not ignoring his credentials... he's saying that even with credentials, your numbers still need to be confirmed.

That's a valid point on almost any topic of debate, but with the dumbing down of tertiary education so that Mugsly and Dingbat can get credentials too, a degree these days is worth not much more than toilet paper.

I once had a debate with an American uni lecturer who got offended because I said
"An education is no guarantee of intelligence".
My point being that while intelligence can be enhanced or one's potential increased via childhood stimulation.
intelligence for the most part is something you are born with or without.

While still in the Greens I got into a debate with the then Qld Greens webmaster Dr Sam Stainsbury,
who claims to have a PHd in particle physics.
The debate was about electrical current, for which I proposed be used for electrolysis of saline
to extract hydrogen to run internal combustion engines (much like we run them on LNG/methane).

Sam reckoned that it would require too much energy to generate the electrical current needed.
I pointed out it only takes 1.7 volts to split water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms/gas, and so can be done with
photovoltaic cells/solar panels.
He said that "Volts are not a measurement of electricity" and that only Watts count.

A particle physicist should have known better than to make such an absurd statement regarding atomic particles - electrons .
Not only are volts a measurement of electrical current, but are the most importent measure of current as volts determines Amperage.
And volt multiplied by amps = watts.

Anyway I trashed the status of his credentials on the grounds he had no experience with electricity, and I'd been tinkering with, disassembling and building electrical devices since I was 12. He admitted he had no electrical experience and threatened to ban me from the site for being rude. I said I was sorry for my rudeness even though he was sorry for his rudeness in which he denigrated running internal combustion engines on hydrogen extracted by solar powered electrolysis as "Perpetual Motion" bunkum.

So AFAIC his credentials as a particle physicist are worth shit.

Meanwhile there had been major leaks from the site to Andrew Landeryou in Vic,
which he made big song and dances about. I suspected he was the leak, but knew the party would think I was paranoid if I said so, so said nothing.
When he quit the party on the fantastic grounds that he reckoned the melding of humans and robotics was so near/close/soon
that he saw no reason to be a member anymore, the leaks from the site to Andrew Landeryou immediately stopped.

So in hindsight, I'd say he was a complete fraud in more ways than one, but then he is a vegetarian, so hardly surprising.

People who worship fancy titles are fools.

[IQS.RLOW]

Nah, sorry matey, he wears a tie, and I have a flat top hair cut.
Besides, I'm not interested in who he is or what the Sierra club is, says or thinks.
So didn't bother watching the vid.

Thanks for proving youre an ignorant swampy.
Not that it wasnt obvious already.

Here's one for SN who seems to put so much "faith" in the IPCC

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-p ... /10/47155/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The basis for the Paris climate talks in December is “the science” produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The science must be good because it’s coming from the world’s top climate-type scientists,[1] or so the story goes.

Well, the story is guff.

The IPCC scientists aren’t the best available, far from it. They’re a motley crew assembled via a typical United Nations boondoggle that stacks the scientific ranks with heavy quotas for Third Worlders, along with special consideration for females. The IPCC rules explain that the IPCC hierarchy “shall reflect balanced geographical representation with due consideration for scientific and technical requirements.” (My emphasis).

The senior scientists draft the all-important Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs), as distinct from their thousands of back-up pages of science studies. Then politicians and bureaucrats, not the scientists, sculpt the wording on the final drafts, including the Synthesis Report.

In IPCC-Orwell speak: “The endorsement process is based on a dialogue between those who will use the report – the governments — and those who write it – the scientists.” The stenographers of the mainstream media ignore this, receiving the summary kits and chorusing, “The Science has spoken.”[2] The best example of Summaries’ propaganda is that, while their 2013 forecasting of CO2 doom is climate-model based, no Summary includes the all-important admission from Working Group 1’s body text: that 111 of 114 model runs had over-forecasted actual temperature rises from 1998-2012.

Read it all SN. Dont be ignorant like Yogi.

[Rorschach]

Do beg off Yogi...
Oh and don't jump into others arguments unless you know what's been said before or actually have a relevant point to make yourself.
Both these posts relating to my earlier posts are absolute crap. Wassup, dog stopped talking to you