Page #: 228/246 |
@kimjongl | 30 October 19 | |
When you can't address arguments against your religion, attack the opponents and paint them as heretics.
|
||
@3mel | 30 October 19 | |
it's not a religion to anyone here and none of us, you included are qualified to speak on how it impacts climate models or if it does at all. we need other climatologists to address his points. that site does seem to be focused exclusively on articles going against the prevailing consensus of climate science. I only scanned the titles but some appear to be in contradiction to each other too, like all comers are welcome until something sticks. |
||
@kimjongl | 30 October 19 | |
I guess we'll just have to continually rely on the 97pc and hysterical manipulated children.
|
||
@bozzalad | 30 October 19 | |
The 97 pc shyte is the most over quoted lie ever, seems odd that with all the supposed evidence these experts still feel the need to fabricate shyte twist data and outright lie, repeatedly
|
||
@phallica | 31 October 19 | |
@ kimjongl - 30.10.19 - 08:40am 'They're the best dancers, seriously, look it up.' LOL. It's funny the Conservative Inc crowd are out for blood because Kirk got humiliated by Fuentes' zoomer fans, they're dreging up some old but gold. |
||
@kimjongl | 31 October 19 | |
@ bozzalad - 30.10.19 - 06:58pm The 97 pc shyte is the most over quoted lie ever, seems odd that with all the supposed evidence these experts still feel the need to fabricate shyte twist data and outright lie, repeatedly The basis for all their climate models is built on a foundation of sand. They have to fudge the data to make it fit the political narrative. |
||
@obi_jon | 31 October 19 | |
@kimjongl | 31 October 19 | |
Still unable to address a single substantive point, only ad hominem. It's the Soros cultists way.
|
||
@obi_jon | 31 October 19 | |
@ kimjongl - 31.10.19 - 10:36am Still unable to address a single substantive point, only ad hominem. It's the Soros cultists way. You don't have any substansive points. The premises of the climate change denialist arguments you try to make are 'Not Even Wrong', therefore any conclusions or opinions you or anyone else might make/form from those arguments are simply incorrect. |
||
@kimjongl | 31 October 19 | |
'Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data, writes Nakamura. Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century. From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. Hes published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics. There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge. Todays global warming science is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and were even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy. Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But hes up against it activists are winning at the moment, and theyre fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one thats tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bast*rd (Ive tried).' |
||