APP - Scientists Answer the Questions of the Flat Earth Society...
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Prister... let me clue you in on some things....
You are being used as what is called a "useful idiot."
Def: In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used.
The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.
A large contingent of people from the environmentalist movement, as well as those from the socialist movement, have concocted a plan to bilk industries and corporations in America of billions in fines and fees, associated with this "theory" of man-made global warming. People you will never know, and who don't really give a rats ass about you, stand to make millions on the scheme, while further burdening capitalism with a bunch of nonsense, to the advantage of the socialist movement.
They have filled your head full of baseless science, conjecture, and outright lies, and like a good little idiot, you have believed them every step of they way. Now that the world has discovered the fraud, and the lie has been exposed, you are pulling out all the stops to keep the "myth" of man made global warming perpetuated, because.... well, I don't know why you do it.... I guess you're just an idiot? This is like some kind of fucking sports event to you.... and your "team" is losing, so you have to grab your pom-poms and rally them on for the "win!" It's beyond your limited ability as an idiot, to think for yourself or be objective about this issue, because you can't fathom the realization that you have been used this way. So you continue to throw out baseless studies and reports from the same people who have been lying to us all along, in the hopes (I guess) of changing someone's mind... but anyone who would buy this load of shit now, would have to be more stupid and inept than YOU, and there just isn't a very deep pool of those kind of idiots out here.
You are being used as what is called a "useful idiot."
Def: In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used.
The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.
A large contingent of people from the environmentalist movement, as well as those from the socialist movement, have concocted a plan to bilk industries and corporations in America of billions in fines and fees, associated with this "theory" of man-made global warming. People you will never know, and who don't really give a rats ass about you, stand to make millions on the scheme, while further burdening capitalism with a bunch of nonsense, to the advantage of the socialist movement.
They have filled your head full of baseless science, conjecture, and outright lies, and like a good little idiot, you have believed them every step of they way. Now that the world has discovered the fraud, and the lie has been exposed, you are pulling out all the stops to keep the "myth" of man made global warming perpetuated, because.... well, I don't know why you do it.... I guess you're just an idiot? This is like some kind of fucking sports event to you.... and your "team" is losing, so you have to grab your pom-poms and rally them on for the "win!" It's beyond your limited ability as an idiot, to think for yourself or be objective about this issue, because you can't fathom the realization that you have been used this way. So you continue to throw out baseless studies and reports from the same people who have been lying to us all along, in the hopes (I guess) of changing someone's mind... but anyone who would buy this load of shit now, would have to be more stupid and inept than YOU, and there just isn't a very deep pool of those kind of idiots out here.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
translation: there is 'consensus' because Cypress has deemed that critics are subpar scientists with lower levels of expertise and research records.... he has said it, thus it must be true.
LMAO.... show your evidence that it is 'dominated' by humans. Oh yeah, your 'evidence' is nothing more than government paid shills who wish to provide more power to their masters stating things like 'well, we can't explain the warming by natural forces (that we are aware of) and therefore it MUST be man' oh and 'we will ignore any period in time that might actually have been warmer than today... because that would like... you know... make statements like the above quite silly'
PLEASE SOURCE THE ABOVE....
The ACTUAL comment is that 'there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING in the past 15 years.' A FACT stated by the unimpeachable Phil Jones
Al Gore lied/exaggerated throughout his 'look at me, love me' propaganda film and Hollywood love fest. Even the IPCC and your unimpeachable scientists don't agree with his extreme fear mongering. When other fear mongers are like 'dude, you are an extreme'.... odds are you are full of shit.
Side note Cypress: WHAT is Al Gores expertise in? Is he a scientist or a politician?
Multiple investigations paid for by those accused of fraud and 'independent' panels stacked with people who already are 'consensus' lemmings amazingly have discovered that their fellow foxes did nothing wrong while in the chicken coop.
LMAO.... When someone states that there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995, it is kind of stupid to come back with your comment of 'there has been warming since 1995, take a stats class'.
SOME glaciers are in retreat.... others are advancing.
Again... SOURCE this
ROFLMAO....
So the scientists who used tree ring data to prove global warming was 'caused by man' should be ignored since the data is irrelevant?
Cypress... you are indeed a moron. Tell us why you are so fearful to tell us who paid for the 'independent' studies of the climate gate scandal (and the Mann inquiry). Why are you afraid to address the quote from your unimpeachable Jones?
You take the time to create these posts, yet cannot answer the simple questions actually posed to YOU.... why is that Cypress?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Most of the "to do's" those lists have been debunked by the EPA.
I happen to like the bulbs. They save me money every month...that said, there are MILLIONS of products that are much more prevalent in today's society that, if not handled properly, will cause pollution.
"Full of suck"?
Really?
THAT'S your closing argument?
It's an assessment, not an argument. I notice your argument is "I like them"... Yes, and if everybody else did and thought they were improvements it would be unnecessary to make a law making incandescent bulbs contraband. You say we are "doomed" because we are unwilling to make symbolic gestures, I say stop worrying about symbolic gestures and make cool things. People will buy them and it will change the face of NASCAR. It won't be symbolic and worthless on the whole.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh I agree there. I spent the first 10 years of my career working in recycling hazardous waste (in fact the company I worked for was the first company to be exempted from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA for recyling a listed hazardous waste, e.g. an F006 chrome plating sludge).
The single biggest problem with any green/recycled product is that most people don't give a fuck that it's green. Oh they do on the surface but what they really care about is how does that product perform. When your engineering a recycling or green process if you can't produce a competative product that performs as well or better then analogous products, then your going to have troubles making that recycling or green process/product a viable business.
Exactly!
And I prefer improvement, and gave the Tesla Roadster as an example. Imagine if they added two more gears... They limit its speed by only giving you two.
I have a question for the warmers
How large is the range in error of temps derived by dendrochronology?
How large is the range in error of temps derived by thermometer?
do you think it's odd to represent a graph of proxy derived temps without the error margins represented in some way as well? Could non-scientists see this a definitive temp from the past when the graph is mated with real temps, coincidentally, at the perfect point at which proxy temps meet with real temps?
How large is the range in error of temps derived by dendrochronology?
How large is the range in error of temps derived by thermometer?
do you think it's odd to represent a graph of proxy derived temps without the error margins represented in some way as well? Could non-scientists see this a definitive temp from the past when the graph is mated with real temps, coincidentally, at the perfect point at which proxy temps meet with real temps?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
What you asking us for you lazy bastard? The data's out there. Calculate the variance your self. Here's the formula
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It doesn't neccessarily have to be an improvement, though that certainly doesn't hurt, as long as the product is competitive in quality with existing products in the market. That's the problem with most recycled or green products. They don't perform as well in general. That's particularly true where basic materials are concerned because most recycled materials do not perform as well as products made from virgin materials and that places a severe limit on the market for those recycled materials.
Last edited:
What you asking us for you lazy bastard? The data's out there. Calculate the variance your self. Here's the formula
what an idiot. You probabaly don't really understand the question
If you did, you'd be able to google up the overwhelming evidence that surely must exist. The name of the study is MBH98. please find some answers if you're going to try to make fun of me. I've described above why the graph that our politicians used to hoodwink the masses into letting them enact BS carbon laws is purposely misleading. In finance or business, it would be fraud. Somehow, it passes for science to you. LOL you must be one heck of a thorough scientist. It makes me chuckle that you don't understand why MBH98 is flawed. You fail at science.
please describe why the wegman report was needed.
use google dumbass
I can see why you have completely abandoned giving links, and are now reduced to just tossing out random "questions", using language you read on a rightwing blog, in the hopes you can fly under the radar with a veneer of credibility.
First, Mott is right: if you want some calculations done, do them yourself and have them peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. The data is publically available. If you think the temperature records are all mucked up, it's your responsibility to do scientific analysis, and have them reviewed, scrutinized and accepted by a swath of scientific peers.
Second, you can randomly toss out the names of acronyms, and "reports" all you want, but if you don't provide any links to substantiate your guesses and assertions, the premise of anything you say on this topic is suspect.
I assume you are referring to the Mann hockey stick paper from 1998, although the fact you use acronyms and codes you read on a rightwing blog makes me think you're trying to disguise the nature of your question, or to lend yourself an air of credibility that you don't have.
The mann hockey stick has been repeatedly reproduced and replicated by multiple lines of evidence, and other independent researchers, and have passed the threshold of widespread scientific scrutiny through peer review and publication in multiple reputable journals. Some tweaks have had to been made since the 1990s - science isn't static - but the core findings have been independently validated over and over. If you think the Mann Hockey stick is all mucked up, show us your calculations, and link us to the reputable scientific journal that published it. On the other hand, I suspect your parroting what read from MacIntyre (a mining company executive) and McKittirck (an economist) who've made a cottage industry out of whining about the Hockey Stick. Neither of these dudes are actual climate scientists, and their "papers" are routinely rejected by prestigious, and actual scientific journals like Nature because of their shoddy scientific analysis.
As for the "Wegman Report" you forgot to mention that was a non-peer reviewed report submitted to congress at the request of some rightwing congressmen. So it's substance and credibility are not on a par with a body of peer reviewed science. Are you ever going to provide a body peer reviewed literature?
Lastly, the tree ring data are only one proxy for paleoclimate data. The paleoclimatic record is independently corroborated by multiple lines of proxy data including ice cores, corals, isotopes, boreholes, and other chemical proxies. So whine all you want about tree rings from something you read on a blog. You don't have a leg to stand on, unless you can stop yelping out random "questions", guesses, and assertions, and provide a body of peer reviewed scientific research.
Bottom line, the temperature records are independently validated, by multiple lines of evidence, and from numerous independent researchers who have the highest qualifications possible in the field of climate science. Michael Mann is universally considered by his peers to be one of the giants in modern science, a scientist of unimpeachable credibility, integrity, and capability.
You're just going to have to learn to live with that, man. I'm sorry that when "Climate Gate" blew up in your face it left you heartbroken and despondent.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Once again Cypress comes on and posts his normal bullshit.... yet refuses to answer the very basic questions that even the dumbest of those of his religion should be able to answer.... I wonder why?
1) WHO paid for the 'independent' studies
2) WHO appointed the members of the 'independent' studies panels?
3) WHO was appointed to the panels?
4) Why do you (cypress) proclaim the debate over when your unimpeachable Dr. Jones says it is not over and there is still much that needs to be understood?
5) Do YOU (cypress) think that all of the questions were answered with regards to the 'independent reviews'???
6) Sorry that your flat earth fear mongering AGW theory is falling apart around you. I know you will never answer the above questions as you are far to great a coward to do so. So instead of pretending you understand the topic, perhaps you should spend your time in therapy to help prevent you from stalking women any more.
1) WHO paid for the 'independent' studies
2) WHO appointed the members of the 'independent' studies panels?
3) WHO was appointed to the panels?
4) Why do you (cypress) proclaim the debate over when your unimpeachable Dr. Jones says it is not over and there is still much that needs to be understood?
5) Do YOU (cypress) think that all of the questions were answered with regards to the 'independent reviews'???
6) Sorry that your flat earth fear mongering AGW theory is falling apart around you. I know you will never answer the above questions as you are far to great a coward to do so. So instead of pretending you understand the topic, perhaps you should spend your time in therapy to help prevent you from stalking women any more.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I was also pointing out his lack of understanding of how scientist evaluate data. The fact that he asked us for the range of error in these measurements shows he doesn't understand the data or the measurements involved.
To determine "error" in a measurement one must have an absolute value and a theoretical value. Since there is no absolute value or a theoretical value these measurements are intended to represent then the error cannot be calculated. Instead one would calculate the variance in the data either by calculating the variance of the entire population of the data (for which formula I provided) or by calculating the sample variance for a subsample of the data population set.
Yo Tinfoil dude, the paleoclimatic data show the hockey stick regardless which proxy dataset you use. Even with or without tree rings. The data sets provide modestly different results - how could they not, the data sets are inherently marginally different - but all of the data sets, and all the peer reviewed analysis by different researchers - show the same thing: a hockey stick, and an warming anomaly in the last half century.
Why? Maybe your rightwing blogs didn't tell you this, but the hockey stick and the warming anomaly are a fundamental signal in the data.
International Panel on Climate Change 2007, Fourth Assessment: Paleoclimatic Data:
Scientific References for the Paleoclimate Data:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1
You can yelp out all the questions you want which are based on bogus or fabricated premises....but listen man, don't give me this crap about begging Mott to do some calculations for you....you claimed scientists were lying, the science was fraudulent. Where's your proof man? Where is this big worldwide conspiracy you've spent 9 months blabbing about?
Do you have anything but heresay, and assertions from blogs? And where's your body of peer-reviewed science supporting your assertions that the warming is overwhelmingly, or completely natural?
Are you ever going to provide it?
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Once again Cypress comes on and posts his normal bullshit.... yet refuses to answer the very basic questions that even the dumbest of those of his religion should be able to answer.... I wonder why?
1) WHO paid for the 'independent' studies
2) WHO appointed the members of the 'independent' studies panels?
3) WHO was appointed to the panels?
4) Why do you (cypress) proclaim the debate over when your unimpeachable Dr. Jones says it is not over and there is still much that needs to be understood?
5) Do YOU (cypress) think that all of the questions were answered with regards to the 'independent reviews'???
6) Sorry that your flat earth fear mongering AGW theory is falling apart around you. I know you will never answer the above questions as you are far to great a coward to do so. So instead of pretending you understand the topic, perhaps you should spend your time in therapy to help prevent you from stalking women any more.
1) WHO paid for the 'independent' studies
2) WHO appointed the members of the 'independent' studies panels?
3) WHO was appointed to the panels?
4) Why do you (cypress) proclaim the debate over when your unimpeachable Dr. Jones says it is not over and there is still much that needs to be understood?
5) Do YOU (cypress) think that all of the questions were answered with regards to the 'independent reviews'???
6) Sorry that your flat earth fear mongering AGW theory is falling apart around you. I know you will never answer the above questions as you are far to great a coward to do so. So instead of pretending you understand the topic, perhaps you should spend your time in therapy to help prevent you from stalking women any more.
Good Luck
New member
Actually it goes beyond questioning public policy created in reaction to AGW. The idea that human activities is even partially responsible, let alone "primarily responsible" is still at question. It is still at question because there has been no definitive cause-effect established between CO2 levels and mean global temperatures. The only evidence relating to that has established a correlation between the two over the last 600,000 years, and even that correlation, which is the mainstay support for blaming human activity, points to a cause/effect relationship the reverse of that needed to blame human CO2 sources for rises in MGT. Second, the referenced correlation between CO2 levels and MGT falls apart as soon as data from older periods is introduced.
I have pointed out the questions being ignored several times. WHY IS DATA PRIOR TO THE CURRENT ICE AGE BEING DISREGARDED? It is that simple. We KNOW that prior to the current ice age the Earth was much warmer, with minimal ice caps. Greenland was a temperate island, though a bit smaller. We could probably have grown corn there, or at least barley and red wheat.
If we were to add in data even a couple hundred thousand years earlier than that provided by ice cores, and all the claims of "unprecedented" with regard to CO2 levels, MGTs, melting ice, etc. etc. etc. all go right out the fracking window. Yet it is the comparison of ice core data that is being used to "prove" current trends are "not natural". SINCE WHEN? Because the current climate pattern is what we grew up with?
Another factor which AGW seems to disregard, and proponents certainly don't like pointing it out: WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE! Yes, we are in a period of interglaciation, but none the less, we are in an ICE AGE. Taken as a whole, the ice age itself in the UNUSUAL global climate pattern. To assume that the current ice age and its associated cycles between glaciation and interglaciation is the "norm" simply because homosapiens grew up during this period is egocentrism of the worst kind.
Th Earth was definitely warmer prior to the current ice age. We know that for certain. CO2 levels were higher prior to the current ice age - another well known fact despite Cypress's insistence I need links to prove my assertions. So, HOW can these scientists legitimately claim that current trends in CO2 increases and MGT increases are "unprecedented" unless they are ignoring anything that happened prior to the current ice age?
The AGW (or ACC if you like) scientists need to explain why climatic data prior to 600,000 years ago is irrelevant. They need to explain how current trends are still "unprecedented" (therefore needing the explanation of a "new" factor of influence) in spite of paleoclimatic data of a much warmer Earth a million years ago. They need to explain how the Earth was much, MUCH warmer and stayed so for over 100,000,000 despite an 80% drop in atmospheric CO2 over that period in time, yet can maintain that human sources of CO2 are a primary driver in current MGT increases. They need to explain how the Earth entered into a worse ice age than the current one despite CO2 levels over 5 times current values.
They also need to explain the mechanism for CO2 causing rising MGT in light of planetary modeling experiments showing changes in CO2 heat retention at low partial pressures is immeasurable. Unless they can explain HOW CO2 at 400 ppmv retains significantly more heat than CO2 at 300 ppmv, then, again, their claims fall out the window. Thus far their claims are reliant on their correlation data (CO2 rises when MGT rises, falls when MGT falls) - yet even that data clearly shows CO2 increases FOLLOWING MGT increases by a couple hundred years, yet, somehow, human CO2 is still the CAUSE? (Since when does cause FOLLOW result?) We have all heard of the greenhouse effect of gasses like CO2, yet actual studies of the mechanism do not support the claims. According to studies of greenhouse mechanism of CO2, CO2 concentration is still way too low to provide a significant greenhouse effect. Water vapor is what provides the VAST majority of our greenhouse effect. One only has to observe the temperature difference between a clear night and a cloudy night (other things being equal) to understand the enormous effect of water vapor. But when scientists study CO2 alone the difference between CO2 at 300 ppmv and CO2 at 400 ppmv, no measurable difference is found.
Bottom line, AGW/ACC has left MANY very relevant questions unanswered, and continues to rely on a very narrow set of data (600,000 years is a geologic eye blink.) coupled with measurements of current trends to establish a base for their claims that human activity is a primary factor. With the missing explanations of why earlier climatic data is excluded from their analysis (or, if it is included, why it is irrelevant to current trends), and these questions being met with "debate is over" crap, then it gives me pause to wonder why. Not conspiracy minded, but rather bringing out the question if there is a fear of government monetary support going away if AGW/ACC threat turns out to be, shall we say, somewhat overstated.
As for governments, we're talking trillions of dollars annually world wide in "prevent AGW/ACC" taxes and fees. With that kind of cash in question, do you REALLY blame some people for questioning government motives for supporting the idea as heavily as they obviously do?
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
An even simpler question for the Warmers...
Why is it, the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth, was in 1922, some five years before the aerosol spray can was invented? It just seems to be logical to me, if man were doing something to cause the planet to warm, we would have seen the record broken in the past 88 years, at some point. Actually, you'd think it would be broken every year or two at least, if the average were constantly increasing as you claim. But no.... All the industrialization of the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and all of the careless dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and we still haven't reached that warmest temp on record yet!
Why is it, the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth, was in 1922, some five years before the aerosol spray can was invented? It just seems to be logical to me, if man were doing something to cause the planet to warm, we would have seen the record broken in the past 88 years, at some point. Actually, you'd think it would be broken every year or two at least, if the average were constantly increasing as you claim. But no.... All the industrialization of the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and all of the careless dumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and we still haven't reached that warmest temp on record yet!
Good Luck
New member
That is easy. The 1922 recorded temperature is an anomalous outlier. Any scientist knows that such outlying data points are not an unusual phenomenon when analyzing raw data for trends. In fact the science of statistical analysis has several methods specifically developed for dealing with outliers in a data set.
The fact is recent analysis does show a generalized upward trend in MGT. What the debate is about is whether man is causing it, is a significant factor, or is a mere observer of the phenomenon. AGW/ACC proponents want to blame man, but while the data showing a current warming trend is pretty solid, the data linking human activity (ie: CO2 emmissions due to technology) is not.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well I know all of that, but still.... Don't you imagine, if mankind were doing something to "increase" the temps, we would see the "top" temp being set each summer? It went up to 136 degrees in 1922, and it hasn't been that high since... we aren't making the planet warmer.
Nominal rises and falls in median temps over a few decades, have more to do with sun cycles and solar activity, than something we are doing to increase the temps. The median temp has risen by 1 degree Celsius in a CENTURY! Big fucking WOOP!