https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...66/853/e44.gif
Printable View
The position that you are a fartsniffer of the highest order remains rock solid.Quote:
I've disproved a lot more of the true believer's positions than my positions have been disproved.
You lost every single debate above.. Still waiting on your credentials beyond YouTube University. Pretty much everyone else here has at least a masters degree with graduate level math and statistics courses. Yet we all still bow to the climatology expert opinions and the peer reviews. How bout you Ron? This is why you don't understand how wrong you are on every one of these points..
If those are the only three things you can think of then you have no more self-awareness than a vinyl floor.
4. Not only did you post Easterbrook's graph and then reference it over-and-over, but you willfully ignored data from other ice-core sites in Greenland
5. You repeatedly, not just once, but multiple times posted fraudulent information
6. You continuously, and either ignorantly or willfully misrepresent other peoples' statements
7. You misrepresent your own past statements
8. You post sources, and then make assertions about those sources even though your own source directly contradicts your own specious claims
9. And on and on...
What a legend.
4. Huh? I was the one posting the other ice core data in Greenland in support of my position.
5. Like what?
6. Like what?
7. Like what?
8. I guess you must be talking about this link I gave: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504133207.htm Of which the story and abstract from the paper support my position. You were able to find a graph from the paper which kind of supports your position and kind of doesn't.
None of these examples you give are refutations of a position of mine. I could pretty easily do this for you, many things you have posted in this thread were flat out wrong.
Fartsniffers will fartsniff oh wise and mighty Ronbo
Get gang fucked by a rabid pack of chimpanzees.
Ron
If you were completely wrong, would you have any idea?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Either he doesn't or he's still really believing we will believe he is correct... updating the charts with his sharpie as we go along to try to prove he wasn't wrong. True story bro! He had no idea what the z axis was or how 3d charts work for starters. Trying to talk the way over his head talk, trying to learn as he goes along. and failing... Make that failed. The science geeks here have given up after making genuine efforts to help him understand..
Please provide the instance of where I'm updating charts with a sharpie or whatever this is supposed to suggest.
The z axis and 3d charts comments make no sense. Can you please provide an example of where a "3d chart" is of use in climate discussion.
I'm still waiting for you to give an example of one of the "every single debates" that I have lost.
“Any scientist who could soundly demonstrate that Earth is not warming [because of human activity] would become an instant science celebrity.” -@MichaelEMann
Here's your link lying sack of shit. BTW, the moron deniers you pray too are the ones that alter the data and the charts to make them look legit, then you pass it around as fact instead of the fake bullshit it is.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/...edieval-times/
Even when you had the chance to google what a 51 year average rate is you couldn't figure it out or were to lazy to try. It is the average temperature change during a trailing 51 year period, expressed in degrees C change / hundred years. It is not the average temperature for separate 51 year periods (1-51, 52-103). That would be almost pointless.
To make it a bar graph you'd need a bar for every single year - so it would look like a line. Again you don't understand line graphs, charts or intermediate math. Yet you are so arrogant you think you are a better interpreter of complex studies, you clearly don't understand, than almost every PhD climate scientist. Who by the way would spin circles around you in every respect of your knowledge of science.
Even I would.
We could relatively easily get to 40-80% renewables, dependent on location, without hitting exponential rate increases and with current tech. But people like you continue to excuse and condone energy plans that make no attempt to limit carbon. Additionally, you refuse to factor the cost of carbon into any of your cost hand wringing. Oh whoops, we are going to end up spending trillions per year to combat rising seas but we shouldn't consider that! Just like we shouldn't consider calving when we look at the ice balance on Greenland.
In 24 October 2017, Breitbart.com’s James Delingpole published a story appearing to report that hundreds of scientific papers published in 2017 “prove” that global warming is a myth. This post followed Delingpole’s June 2017 clickbait success falsely alleging that 58 published papers proved the same thing.
Both stories primarily consisted of regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations.
The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.
Despite these deficiencies, a 23 October 2017 NTZ post upped the alleged tally of climate change-disproving papers from 58 to 400 (which, to be clear, still includes those previous misrepresented studies).
We emailed Delingpole to ask how long it took him to research his piece, given that less than 24 hours elapsed between the original NTZ post and his Breitbart piece. Rather than write back, Delingpole published our query on Breitbart, along with the following response (which read in part):
As little time as I possibly could.
From : https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/ .
Debates are generally healthy.
Mr. Johnson, I have no idea what kind of person you are. I'm generally pretty naïve and assume that people mean well. But your arguments are flimsy and virtually all of the website you've referenced such as NTZ outside the academic ones are partial to or funded by the fossil fuels industry. So from my perspective, your case is frail.
Another example with regard to climatechangedispatch: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-change-dispatch/
I do think the data on cloud cover and cosmic particles contribution to cooling is interesting. But it's just part of the story, a fiber in the material of theories that serve to explain stuff. So is AGW.
I don't really understand the argument that if we can't have 100% renewable energy resources like solar and wind, that they're completely useless. Maybe we will have to have some carbon based backups as our energy production transitions. I'd be fine with that.
I guess what totally disembowels your diatribes is the accusation of ad hominem attacks while in the same posts making them. It's just poor form and convinces no one.
Ron, are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect? You should be.
Climate Change Deniers like Ronald always prefer the single solution/magic silver bullet to all of life's complexities!
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...mPL8gKirXbaxEg
An "Op Ed" hack for a link
"There is an old Russian saying that applies here: “long calculation means wrong calculation.” The likelihood is that this study is off by at least an order of magnitude."
"An order of magnitude low is my guess.
I’ve read both Jacobson 2017 and Clack. Based on my own experience Jacobson is insane. There is just…so many huge problems he glosses over with his solutions, so many impracticalities baked in the cake.
Which is odd, because you could solve the problem at a small fraction of the price by conceding that 100% renewable is not cost effective, and mixing in an appropriate amount of gas and small nuclear into the mix. Getting to 60% renewable is quite possible, with the remainder split between natural gas and nuclear is quite feasible, at a small fraction of the price. And that would essentially solve the worries about global warming."
Cherry picking cunt you are
From your link;
"The institute believes that snow had caused poor ventilation around the thermometers at the site, wrongly boosting the temperature.
The record temperature ever recorded at Summit is 2.2C, which was reached in both 2012 and 2017. But -2C is still unusual at the station.
"It's not a record, but -2C is still warm," Damberg said. "It was the heat that lay around Europe that moved up to Iceland and on to Greenland."
Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the institute, told The Local that the revised temperature figure did not affect the institute's estimate that the ice cap lost a record 12.5bn tons of ice in just 24 hours last week, which triggered headlines across the world.
"This does not alter our ice melt figures at all," she said in an email to The Local, pointing out that while the temperature measurement was taken at about 2m above the ice, her group was "largely interested in the surface temperature".