More global warming fraud

[zoombabyzoom]

Here is some nice examples

http://pulptastic.com/35-unbelievab...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[jwlcosu]

A healthy dose of skepticism would make you look like less of an idiot...

Not possible

 

[Spartanmack]

Here is some nice examples

http://pulptastic.com/35-unbelievab...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Do you get the feeling those people are anti-vaxers? I think I can see FOX news on TV in one of those canoes. Goddam GOP!

 

[Thumb]

Feel like the anti-vaccination crowd and the global warming isn't real crowd are the same people.

Well you can't fight viruses or climate change with a gun, so it's not a real problem.

 

[Thumb]

Not possible

LOL this from the idiot that posted how terrorists were in Oklahoma?

 

[Monster]

Here is some nice examples

http://pulptastic.com/35-unbelievab...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

pictures prove nothing to these right wing people. Now if it were a picture of an angel in the clouds...THAT FUCKING PROVES JEBUS IZ RETURNING!!!! AMEN!

 

[Sbee]

This stuff continues to be uncovered and yet people still buy it.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/envi...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

That guy also doesn't think that smoking causes lung cancer and asbestos poses no risk. Light up dude, the guy from the Telegraph says you're fine if you do!

 

[Sbee]

It's hard to get accurate info these days with far left groups like NASA misleading the population to make windfall profits for their owners. I trust my info from the heritage foundation or heartland institute, that's where you get the straight truth. We can't be 100% sure as to the causes of atmospheric carbon being at he highest level in 650,000 years. We should just observe it for a few more centuries and not pass any legislation until after that.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's hard to get accurate info these days with far left groups like NASA misleading the population to make windfall profits for their owners. I trust my info from the heritage foundation or heartland institute, that's where you get the straight truth. We can't be 100% sure as to the causes of atmospheric carbon being at he highest level in 650,000 years. We should just observe it for a few more centuries and not pass any legislation until after that.

So profit is the only motive to commit fraud and is itself inherently evil so you can't trust anyone motivated by profit? But governments with ZERO accountability with the power to confiscate resources and zero incentive for the efficient allocation of those resources is worthy of your full faith and confidence? Is that about right?

On to the point at hand, which in this case has nothing to with profit because here the data conclusions are being analyzed and by a SCIENTIST from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - hardly a right wing think tank and clearly not motivated by profit. How do you explain that? How many degrees of separation are there between the UN and the Koch Brothers?

 

[Spartanmack]

pictures prove nothing to these right wing people. Now if it were a picture of an angel in the clouds...THAT FUCKING PROVES JEBUS IZ RETURNING!!!! AMEN!

Yeah, them damm conservatives don't know nothing bout how china is the world's #1 polluter because they ignore these damm pichers! They will just ignore them pichers of the dang pollution all day. Must be because of that sumbich Jesus that they demand we earth loving liberals not exempt China from them pollution treaties we can't get signed because we keep exempting the top 2 polluters in the world. Goddam christians!

 

[Sbee]

So profit is the only motive to commit fraud and is itself inherently evil so you can't trust anyone motivated by profit? But governments with ZERO accountability with the power to confiscate resources and zero incentive for the efficient allocation of those resources is worthy of your full faith and confidence? Is that about right?

On to the point at hand, which in this case has nothing to with profit because here the data conclusions are being analyzed and by a SCIENTIST from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - hardly a right wing think tank and clearly not motivated by profit. How do you explain that? How many degrees of separation are there between the UN and the Koch Brothers?

ah yes, the classic false equivalence. Heavy polluters and oil profiteers bankroll research and shockingly their findings mirror their interests, but maybe we can create some doubt about NASA and a potential gain from their research so it's the same thing, right? I mean on one side there's Koch funded research and there's NASA on the other, one on each side so it's 50/50

 

[Spartanmack]

ah yes, the classic false equivalence. Heavy polluters and oil profiteers bankroll research and shockingly their findings mirror their interests, but maybe we can create some doubt about NASA and a potential gain from their research so it's the same thing, right? I mean on one side there's Koch funded research and there's NASA on the other, one on each side so it's 50/50

false equivalence? just when I thought you couldnt' say anything more stupid, after getting called out for false framing this piece you try to pan this off like it's a false equivalence. It's not. It's not even close. Do you even know what a false equivalence is? This is not oil backed research, this scientist works for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. Did you read the piece or the guy's bio?

 

[Spartanmack]

That guy also doesn't think that smoking causes lung cancer and asbestos poses no risk. Light up dude, the guy from the Telegraph says you're fine if you do!

You made this up didn't you? You sly dog you. If they come at you with science and data, make something up to discredit them and earn yourself instant credibility. You should get a job as a data collector for the NWS...

 

[Michchamp]

Here is some nice examples

http://pulptastic.com/35-unbelievab...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

gross.


GROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSS.

 

[Monster]

Yeah, them damm conservatives don't know nothing bout how china is the world's #1 polluter because they ignore these damm pichers! They will just ignore them pichers of the dang pollution all day. Must be because of that sumbich Jesus that they demand we earth loving liberals not exempt China from them pollution treaties we can't get signed because we keep exempting the top 2 polluters in the world. Goddam christians!

Why bring China into this? I guess you can't read. I'll talk slower. Proof....means....nothing....to you....people. Climate....change....(global warming)...is real.....and....humans....are....a big....contributor....to it. That....includes...China.

 

[Michchamp]

You made this up didn't you? You sly dog you. If they come at you with science and data, make something up to discredit them and earn yourself instant credibility. You should get a job as a data collector for the NWS...

well, read the guy's wikipedia page.

he's also a fan of intelligent design:

"Another recent addition to the BBC's hate list is "intelligent design", the movement gathering way among many respected scientists in the US and elsewhere who have become profoundly sceptical about the adequacy of Darwinian natural selection to explain the complexities of evolution."
​

HAhahaha..."respected scientists!" It gets worse from there.

Fuck you.

 

[Sbee]

You made this up didn't you? You sly dog you. If they come at you with science and data, make something up to discredit them and earn yourself instant credibility. You should get a job as a data collector for the NWS...

Nope, it was listed on his Wikipedia, I saw this article on another site and looked it up.

Smoke em if you've got em

 

[Gulo Blue]

well, there's also this...

http://www.sealevel.info/Cowtan_unintentionally_vindicates_Booker.html

from a scientist on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who participated in the North Carolina Sea Level Rise Impact Study. He is also a Spartan.

Hurry up and discredit him so you can get back to yelling about the sky falling - and it's because of human activity.

He isn't making that strong an argument (and he isn't trying to). All he's saying is that the adjustments are significant. He doesn't actually claim the adjustments are wrong. He specifically says he doesn't know.

 

[Gulo Blue]

well, read the guy's wikipedia page.

he's also a fan of intelligent design:

"Another recent addition to the BBC's hate list is "intelligent design", the movement gathering way among many respected scientists in the US and elsewhere who have become profoundly sceptical about the adequacy of Darwinian natural selection to explain the complexities of evolution."
​

HAhahaha..."respected scientists!" It gets worse from there.

Fuck you.

Smartanmack is talking about David Burton, not Bookers.

Curriculum vitae
David A. Burton is the owner of Burton Systems Software, 109 Black Bear Ct, Cary, NC 27513 USA.

He has a BS in Systems Science from Michigan State University, and an MA in Computer Sciences from the University of Texas at Austin.

He is a Board Member of NC-20, and one of the organization's Science Advisors. In 2011 he wrote a comprehensive critique of the Coastal Resource Commission's 2010 North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report, identifying numerous serious errors in that document. He is or was also a member of the NC Sea Level Rise Impact Study Advisory Committee, a member of the NC Portal Project Review Committee, a U.N. IPCC AR5 WG1 Expert Reviewer, and webmaster of the sealevel.info web site.

He now runs Geek Alive! Computer Rescue according to linkedin. He's dug into patent law a bit too. It doesn't matter too much, his point doesn't really require that we take his word for it. The chart is right there. We can confirm his point with it. He's not saying the corrections are wrong, just that they are significant. His point about how big the impact is is valid (although I would have done a linear fit instead of picking start and end points; it takes like two minutes... Done. It changes nothing, the impact is about the same if you do it that way.) Really, what matters is why the adjustments were made and David Burton does not voice an opinion on that.

 

[Sbee]

Smartanmack is talking about David Burton, not this guy.



He now runs Geek Alive! Computer Rescue according to linkedin

Well my response about smoking included the quote from tsmith with the link from the daily telegraph. It shouldn't be difficult to ascertain who I was referring to.