APP - Scientists Answer the Questions of the Flat Earth Society...

Cypress

Well-known member
Due to overwhelming demand from the members of the Flat Earth Society....


The UK Met Hadley Center – the UK’s preeminent scientific institution on climate science -, and other highly reputable scientific institutions, answer the questions of the JPP.com Flat Earth Society….


“It was like really HOT, like 60 million years ago! Isn’t the climate always changing?”

Yes. There is natural variability in Earth’s climate but the current climate change is very unusual as it is not exclusively part of a natural cycle.

Natural factors include volcanic eruptions, aerosols and phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña (which cause warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean surface). Natural climate variations can lead to periods with little or no warming, both globally and regionally, and other periods with very rapid warming. However, there is an underlying trend of warming that is almost certainly caused by man’s activities.

”Aren’t all these changes down to the Sun and natural factors?”

No. Many factors contribute to climate change. Only when all the factors are considered can we explain the size and patterns of climate change over the last century.

Although some people claim that the Sun and cosmic rays are responsible for climate change, measured solar activity shows no significant change in the last few decades, while global temperatures have increased significantly. Since the Industrial Revolution, additional greenhouse gases have had about ten times the effect on climate as changes in the Sun’s output.
Much of the relatively small climate variability over the last 1,000 years, but before industrialisation, can be explained by changes in solar output and occasional cooling due to major volcanic eruptions. Since industrialisation, CO2 has increased significantly. We now know that man-made CO2 is the likely cause of most of the warming over the last 50 years.

”Right wing blogs tell me Climate scientists are LYING! Do climate scientists really agree about climate change? “

No. Many factors contribute to climate change. Only when all the factors are considered can we explain the size and patterns of climate change over the last century.

Although some people claim that the Sun and cosmic rays are responsible for climate change, measured solar activity shows no significant change in the last few decades, while global temperatures have increased significantly. Since the Industrial Revolution, additional greenhouse gases have had about ten times the effect on climate as changes in the Sun’s output.

Much of the relatively small climate variability over the last 1,000 years, but before industrialisation, can be explained by changes in solar output and occasional cooling due to major volcanic eruptions. Since industrialisation, CO2 has increased significantly. We now know that man-made CO2 is the likely cause of most of the warming over the last 50 years.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1

"I listen to the Glenn Beck show, and surely, the impact of human activity is small? !!”

No. Greenhouse gases are produced naturally and commercially. Both types influence climate change.

All the greenhouse gases combined (the main ones being water vapour, CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) are only a tiny part of the atmosphere, making up less than 0.5%. Yet it is scientifically proven that these gases trap heat, keeping the planet 30 °C warmer than it would be otherwise and able to sustain life. Any changes in the levels of these gases, such as those recently brought about by human activity, will have a significant effect on global temperatures.

Keeping the climate stable is important for the well-being of the Earth. But there is now very strong evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change.

”I read on a rightwing blog that global warming has stopped! Has global warming now stopped?

No. The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global warming does not mean that each year will necessarily be warmer than the last because of natural variability, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures. The warmth of the last half century is unprecedented in, at least, the previous 1,300 years.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/doubts.html


”Didn’t the International Panel on Climate Change LIE?!!! Isn’t the IPCC 2007 assesment TOTAL crap?!!

No. The IPCC findings in 2007, have subsequently been independently validated and corroborated my the United State’s premier scientific institutions, the Dutch government, and by preeminent British scientific institutions

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678261&postcount=1


”I think five investigations on Climate Gate(!) which vindicated the scientists are wrong! These five investigations are clearly LYING and COVERING UP for the scientists!”

Sadly, no one can help you, or prevent you from being a conspiracy theory nutjob, or a misinformed boob.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=676083&postcount=1
 
Due to overwhelming demand.... I am going to post a bunch of questions they didn't ask and pretend to answer them and then I will proclaim that I have answered their questions. I will continue to ignore their ACTUAL questions. I am a hopeless brain dead flat earth fear mongering fool who believes that man is causing global warming, I mean climate change and I refuse to listen to anyone that dares question my RELIGION

thank you... that is all you needed to say.
 
Side note... I really really really hope by starting ANOTHER thread, that people who haven't seen the other 345 threads I have started and been embarrassed on will think I am really smart.

Sorry Cypress.... that is not how it works....

ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.

As for the question you never answer Cypress....

WHY is it that the global warming fear mongers have now switched to calling it 'climate change'? If MAN is causing WARMING... and it is 'unequivocal scientific fact'... WHY the change?
 
Originally Posted by Cypress
I am going to post a bunch of questions they didn't ask and pretend to answer them and then I will proclaim that I have answered their questions.
in other words, this is going to be one of your average posts....
 
Cypress: 'Climategate was a fraud, you have all been duped, the panels cleared them'

Superfreak: 'Who was on the panels? Who ran the reviews? '

Cypress: 'Those are not valid questions. CONSENSUS!!! the debate is OVER!!! Phil Jones is unimpeachable'

Superfreak: 'Um... Cypress... Phil Jones says the debate is not over and that he doubts the majority of his colleagues think so either. He has also stated that there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING for the past 15 years'

Cypress: ' provide a link'

Superfreak: 'provides link to BBC article showing direct quotes from Jones'

Cypress: 'that is a right wing blog. we have CONSENSUS!!! I have listed government agencies with a vest interest in promoting global fear mongering and you have no peer reviewed pieces to suggest otherwise'

Superfreak 'provides link to peer reviewed paper disputing the premise of AGW'

Cypress: 'no one has heard of that scientist, the university of Delaware is laughable. Laughable I tell you. We have CONSENSUS! I think I need to start a new thread now'

Superfreak: 'why can't you respond to simple questions Cypress'

Cypress: 'I provide links. I provide links. Consensus!'

Superfreak: 'Cypress... those questions are directed at YOU and your links do NOT address them. Why won't you answer Cypress?'

Cypress: 'Because I am afraid, I know the answers will poke holes in my religion'

Superfreak: 'exactly...'
 
LOL. I can't believe he still hasn't answered the questions. It's becoming quite humorous.

I can't believe he actually started another thread on this same topic. Apparently the last several weren't embarrassing enough for him. He had to have another go at it.
 
he can't answer them because he doesn't have a clue. He hasn't read any of the reports or he'd have an answer

In the Muir Russell inquiry, the chairman only met with Jones one time and was not present during the interviews when Jones gave testimony.

None of the inquiries attempted to hear the testimony of sceptics. NONE

It's been compared to a court hearing without a plaintiff being allowed in the courtroom.
 
he can't answer them because he doesn't have a clue. He hasn't read any of the reports or he'd have an answer

In the Muir Russell inquiry, the chairman only met with Jones one time and was not present during the interviews when Jones gave testimony.

None of the inquiries attempted to hear the testimony of sceptics. NONE

It's been compared to a court hearing without a plaintiff being allowed in the courtroom.


No, I learned a long time ago that any assertions you dudes make are based on something you read on a rightwing blog, and which is almost always factually false, or from dubious and unqualified sources.

That's why I stopped wasting time when you shout out assertions and questions. Until you provide substantiated scientific sources and evidence to back your assertions, I'm pretty much done wasting time.

Case in point. You made me waste 5 minutes of my time, just to find out your assertion about "skeptics" being shut out of the investigation is false. You just read that assertion on a rightwing blog. It ain't true, and you've been lied to.

The Russell Meirs report solicited and received a large amount of submissions and "evidence" from sceptics. Including noted flat-earthers McKittrick, McIntyre, and the "Global Warming Foundation". It took me mere mintues to find this. You can actually read all the submittals and evidence that were submitted; the Russell Meyers report is very substantive, well documented, and transparent.

Do you see why I'm no longer bothering to respond to unsubstantiated yelps, assertions, "questions", and specualtions, which are unsupported by reputable links?


Russel Meirs Report:

The most comprehensive and substantive submission critical of CRU is from McKitrick2. He addresses the question of data adjustments and also clarifies that the issue is not generally one of data availability, but more specifically the availability of a list of additional stations used in the CRUTEM analysis since 1986. He draws attention to the series of requests to CRU for station identifiers over the period 2002-2007, eventually culminating in a series of FOI requests, also referred to by Matthews3 and Cockroft4. Two submissions5 allege that CRU has withheld access to primary data and by implication stopped others from repeating analyses, but present no evidence. A common theme in the submissions from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), McKitrick and McIntyre6 is the lack of cooperation exhibited by CRU in their dealings with selected third parties.


So the skeptics submitted complaints, submissions, and accusations to the Panel. But NO substantive EVIDENCE.

I actually looked at the appendices, and the skeptics submitted a ton of sh*t.

Per your courtoom analogy, if you don't provide Credible and Plausible evidence, you're not going to be invited for oral testimony.

We're done here.

Let me know when you have actual links to reputable sources for me to look at. I'm totally done wasting time on unsubstantiated claims and assertions.


As for the number of threads, I don't recall you or anyone else complaining Tinfoil when you were going hog wild and getting giddy about "Climate Gate!". You were like a kid on christmas morning when you thought you had cracked the case of a worldwide cabal of lying scientists. Sorry this has been so heartbreaking and crushing for you. You'll get over it. Science really isn't out to make you look foolish or anything. You just need to stop believing what you read on rightwing blogs.


I gave you answers to climate science, and peer-reviewed data and conclusions from dozens of the most reputable scientific institutions on the planet. You don't have to accept it, just don't get mad at me for just posting highly reputable and virtually universally accepted science.


Carry on.
 
Last edited:
We're only "done" here because you refuse to answer the questions proposed by SF. Mostly because you'll have to actually learn something to get it done. At least that's my guess.
 
No, I learned a long time ago that with any assertions you dudes make I can pretend they are based on something you read on a rightwing blog, and thus continue to pretend that I don't have to answer them.

yes, we know... you continue wasting our time with this same nonsense over and over and over again. Which is why you keep starting threads on this topic.

That's why I stopped wasting time when you shout out assertions and questions. Until you provide substantiated scientific sources and evidence to back your assertions, I'm pretty much done wasting time.

Which is why you KEEP STARTING NEW THREADS ON THIS TOPIC????

Case in point. You made me waste 5 minutes of my time, just to find out your assertion about "skeptics" being shut out of the investigation is false. You just read that assertion on a rightwing blog. It ain't true, and you've been lied to.

LMAO.... so you KNOW we were 'lied' to about the make up of the panels, yet you are INCAPABLE of listing WHO WAS ON THE PANELS????

The Russell Meirs report solicited and received a large amount of submissions and "evidence" from sceptics. Including noted flat-earthers McKittrick, McIntyre, and the "Global Warming Foundation". It took me mere mintues to find this. You can actually read all the submittals and evidence that were submitted; the Russell Meyers report is very substantive, well documented, and transparent.

That is all fine and good Cypress... but tell us... WHO MADE UP THE PANELS THAT DECIDED WHICH INFORMATION WAS 'accepted'?

WERE THERE ANY SKEPTICS ON THE REVIEW PANELS?

WHO WAS ON THE REVIEW PANELS?

I gave you answers to climate science, and peer-reviewed data and conclusions from dozens of the most reputable scientific institutions on the planet. You don't have to accept it, just don't get mad at me for just posting highly reputable and virtually universally accepted science.

LMAO... .once again the coward runs away with his line of CONSENSUS!! CONSENSUS!!!
 
ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.

As for the question you never answer Cypress....

WHY is it that the global warming fear mongers have now switched to calling it 'climate change'? If MAN is causing WARMING... and it is 'unequivocal scientific fact'... WHY the change?
 
We're only "done" here because you refuse to answer the questions proposed by SF. Mostly because you'll have to actually learn something to get it done. At least that's my guess.


I've been waiting for like 6 months for you dudes to provide one, single, solitary reputable peer reviewed scientific report, institution, or body of peer reivewed research that supports your contentions on climate change.

Any idea why you can't provide any?

Because, as my post to Tinfoil shows, I've wasted tons of time dealing with assertions and questions that aren't backed up by anything of scientific substance. Routinely and frequently wasted time on it. Since I can't be on here all day like you, I am not about to waste more time on stuff that you dudes read on a rightwing blog, and parrot here without any substantiation, or supporting links

Give me some actual reputable scientific links to look at, and I'll give it a look.
 
I've been waiting for like 6 months for you dudes to provide one, single, solitary reputable peer reviewed scientific report, institution, or body of peer reivewed research that supports your contentions on climate change.

Any idea why you can't provide any?

Because you IGNORE them???? or say 'that University is LAUGHABLE' and then dismiss the 50 page PEER REVIEWED paper?

WHY CANT YOU ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS CYPRESS???? WHY ARE YOU SO FRIGHTENED TO DO SO?

Because, as my post to Tinfoil shows, I've wasted tons of time dealing with assertions and questions that aren't backed up by anything of scientific substance. Routinely and frequently wasted time on it. Since I can't be on here all day like you, I am not about to waste more time on stuff that you dudes read on a rightwing blog, and parrot here without any substantiation, or supporting links

The ONLY reason you have wasted time is because you CONTINUE to try and find ways to DUCK THE QUESTIONS.
 
ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.

As for the question you never answer Cypress....

WHY is it that the global warming fear mongers have now switched to calling it 'climate change'? If MAN is causing WARMING... and it is 'unequivocal scientific fact'... WHY the change?
 
Because you IGNORE them???? or say 'that University is LAUGHABLE' and then dismiss the 50 page PEER REVIEWED paper?

WHY CANT YOU ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS CYPRESS???? WHY ARE YOU SO FRIGHTENED TO DO SO?



The ONLY reason you have wasted time is because you CONTINUE to try and find ways to DUCK THE QUESTIONS.


Dude, you must have forgotten.

Last time you followed me around begging me to answer a list of questions, I finally got you to divulge where you got your "questions" from, since I knew you didn't come up with them independently.

You got them from ClimateAudit. That was hilarious. ClimateAudit.

I ain't playing that game again, unless you give me credible links that support any assertions, questions, and contentions you post.

As for the temperature records, I refer you the the UK Hadely Center FAQs I posted in the OP, as well as the links to the temperature records I posted from NASA and NOAA.

Those are the temperature records analysis I'm going with. You can go with something you read on a blog if you want.
 
Dude, you must have forgotten. I am a coward and refuse to address these questions. I am going to continue making excuses like 'these questions aren't from you, they must be from a right wing blog' with the hope that no one will notice that your questions are so simple a third grader should be able to answer them

I ain't playing that game again, unless you give me credible links that support any assertions, questions, and contentions you post.

ROFLMAO.... why ARE you so frightened to JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS Cypress?

The only reason you want links is so that you can say something dismissive about a web site or a person in a vain attempt to AVOID ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. Those questions were written by ME... no matter how many times you try to pretend they came from another site... that is not going to change.

THEY ARE SIMPLE QUESTIONS CYPRESS..... answer them if you are so confident in the reviews and in your religion.

As for the temperature records, I refer you the the UK Hadely Center FAQs I posted in the OP, as well as the links to the temperature records I posted from NASA and NOAA.

NOTE TO CYPRESS.... I am not arguing about whether the temps warmed during the latter half of the century. Nor am I disputing that the past decade was one of the warmest of the past 120 years. So quit repeating the above nonsense as if it addresses any of the questions posed to you.
 
ONCE AGAIN.... THE QUESTIONS CYPRESS IS SCARED TO ANSWER.....

As for your independent reviews Cypress...

1) who ran those 'independent reviews? (ie... was it Penn State, East Anglia etc...)

2) who made up the panels doing the reviews? (ie... did it include skeptics as well as proponents of global warming? Or did they just include those who already agreed with global warming?)

3) Do you contend that all of the questions/complaints were answered by the 'independent' reviews?

As for your chart showing the temperatures Cypress:

1) No one is arguing with the fact that the earth warmed during the 1970-1995 time frame. Nor is anyone arguing that it has stayed warm since. But do tell us... if MAN is causing global warming... then why has there been no significant warming over the past 15 years? A FACT stated directly by your unimpeachable Jones.

2) Does your chart demonstrate how the changes in temperature are a result of man?

3) Do you think it is scientifically valid that Jones states the reason he thinks man is responsible is due to: "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing"? Because it would seem that he is saying it has to be man because he can't figure out another reason. That hardly seems sound scientifically.

As for the question you never answer Cypress....

WHY is it that the global warming fear mongers have now switched to calling it 'climate change'? If MAN is causing WARMING... and it is 'unequivocal scientific fact'... WHY the change?
 
probably about time for Cypress to start another thread to yet again ignore the questions.

To the rest of the fear mongering global warming crowd... why do you suppose he is afraid to answer the questions?
 
Back
Top