Jump to content

ConConfounder

Member
  • Content Count

    1,610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As I said...and as you must love demonstrating for all to see.......IGNORANT, INSANE and SEVERELY RETARDED is about the only way to describe you and your delusional posts, DeeplyInsane.
  2. Every post you poop out onto the forum inevitably brings (at least) two words to mind, DeeplyInsane....... IGNORANT and INSANE ......and your moronic dismissal of America's long time traditional allies and friends in NATO, just because they laugh at the bloviating orange clown, adds the words SEVERELY RETARDED to the mix. What do you have....like 65 IQ, or maybe lower?
  3. As traitors to the human race and criminals guilty of Crimes Against Humanity, I would probably favor exiling the deniers to a low lying island somewhere far out in the ocean......and leaving them to deal with the rising sea levels on their own. Since they don't "believe" in that, it should be interesting to observe......remotely, from far away.
  4. And the retard repeats another deranged rightwingnut myth......like a good little troll.
  5. You rightwingnut retards are the crazy posters here who act like clueless imbeciles. Your bunch just post insults, and worthless drivel and fraudulent pseudo-science about topics that you are just too stupid to understand. So you gullibly parrot the propaganda that was shoved into your tiny little brains.
  6. It's actually a good accurate article written by intelligent people. We do know, however, how dumb you are, RedDouchebag, and it's wonder that you can manage to turn on your computer, or tie your shoes. No wonder you imagine that the real stuff is "dumb" when the fact is, you are just too severely retarded to understand what is happening.
  7. Except for what happens down your pants leg when you get drunk, RedDouchebag.
  8. Your constant insanity and denial of reality is quite boring, you poor confused imbecile. Go annoy other people.
  9. Moronic nonsense from the troll BeACretin. The deficit at the end of President Obama's term is an actual, real world number, moron, not something that "were projected". The number was $585 billion.....brought down from Bush's legacy defit of $1.4 trillion. President Evil has run that $585 billion deficit up to very nearly a trillion dollars after promising you gullible retards that he was going to completely eliminate it. I guess you've stoped even trying to count his broken promises.
  10. How do we know that there is a general scientific consensus on the reality of human caused global warming/climate changes? Read the last paragraph! Scientific consensus on climate change From NASA's Global Climate Change website There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports. Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4] A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019.[5] Consensus points The current scientific consensus is that: Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a] Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects. People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences. Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[7] Among the most cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[8][9] It is "extremely likely"[10] that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases"[10] in the atmosphere.[11] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[12][13][14][15] This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[16] The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was completed in 2014.[17]Its conclusions are summarized below: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia."[18] "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."[19] Human influence on the climate system is clear.[20] It is extremely likely (95–100% probability)[21] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951–2010.[20] "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts."[22] "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability."[23] "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change"[22] Without new policies to mitigate climate change, projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels (median values; the range is 2.5 to 7.8 °C including climate uncertainty).[24] The current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions is not consistent with limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2°C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[25] Pledges made as part of the Cancún Agreements are broadly consistent with cost-effective scenarios that give a "likely" chance (66–100% probability) of limiting global warming (in 2100) to below 3 °C, relative to pre-industrial levels.[26] The warming influence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased substantially over the last several decades. In 2017, the AGGI was 1.42, which represents an increase of more than 40% since 1990. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[27][28] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[29] which in 2007[30] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[31] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
  11. A spurious question that you have asked and been answered many times......but you are a denier cult troll and science denier so you are mentally incapable of acknowledging the very real, pretty much unanimous scientific consensus of working climate scientists on the reality and dangers of AGW.......or the also quite real, somewhat lower but similar overall consensus in the general scientific community. Here's a good recent link direct from the real world......hope it can penetrate through the neutronium shell around your denier cult BizarroWorld. 'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts The Guardian Jonathan Watts @jonathanwatts Wed 24 Jul 2019 The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts. Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades. It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time. The Little Ice Age, for example, reached its extreme point in the 15th century in the Pacific Ocean, the 17th century in Europe and the 19th century elsewhere, says one of the studies. This localisation is markedly different from the trend since the late 20th century when records are being broken year after year over almost the entire globe, including this summer’s European heatwave. Major temperature shifts in the distant past are also likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic eruptions, according to another of the studies, which helps to explain the strong global fluctuations in the first half of the 18th century as the world started to move from a volcanically cooled era to a climate warmed by human emissions. This has become particularly pronounced since the late 20th century, when temperature rises over two decades or longer have been the most rapid in the past two millennia, notes the third. The authors say this highlights how unusual warming has become in recent years as a result of industrial emissions. “There is no doubt left – as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the climate system using different methods and data sets,” said Stefan Brönnimann, from the University of Bern and the Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists. Commenting on the study, other scientists said it was an important breakthrough in the “fingerprinting” task of proving how human responsibility has changed the climate in ways not seen in the past. “This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London. Previous studies have shown near unanimity among climate scientists that human factors – car exhausts, factory chimneys, forest clearance and other sources of greenhouse gases – are responsible for the exceptional level of global warming. A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters found 97% of climate scientists agreed with this link in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Last week, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics, according to the authors. The pushback has been political rather than scientific. In the US, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is reportedly putting pressure on Nasa to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CEI has received event funding from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a low-carbon economy. But among academics who study the climate, the convergence of opinion is probably strengthening, according to John Cook, the lead author of the original consensus paper and a follow-up study on the “consensus about consensus” that looked at a range of similar estimates by other academics. He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on an update. “As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming,” Cook wrote on the Skeptical Science blog. “The good news is public understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing. The bad news is there is still a lot of work to do yet as climate deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific consensus.”
  12. Just more bullshyt from the fossil fuel industry stooge, BeACretin. John Christy is a discredited science whore who parrots the propaganda created by Big Oil, and distorts the satellite temperature records. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a fossil fuel industry funded propaganda outlet with zero credibility. Just more meaningless denier cult drivel. As usual and as always from the troll BeACretin. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate denier group. It opposes action to mitigate climate change. Founded by Nigel Lawson,[1] ,an AGW denier with ties to coal burning power stations,[1] and Former Director (until January 2013), CET Capital Limited (which has worked for oil giants BP Amoco, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Texaco and TotalFinaElf) [7]. Nigel Lawson is a prominent climate change skeptic. He has written a book called 'An Appeal to Reason’ which apparently argues that saving the planet will be the real disaster. [6] He has used his media appearances to promulgate inaccurate information about the science of climate change.[7] The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8] "900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[19] The blog Carbon Brief analyzed them, and found that - 9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil "prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.
×
×
  • Create New...