Volcanoes and CO2

Ah, no sorry. You're the one who needs to back that up.

And no, you won't find a vulcanist nor a geologist to "back up" that claim, there are none left willing to tank their careers by being labelled a "Denier" and never get funded again.

In the 1990's the corrupt bastards SHOUTED DOWN every scientist who said so much as "hold on, let's make sure of what we're doing. One of them was a colleague of mine at the University of British Columbia who challenged the figures being used, he asserted they were a lot less than being claimed that many scientists "exaggerate" their findings to create a need and more funding.

He lost his position.

A few weeks ago the IPCC REDUCED by half its claims, about what he said.

So in the department of proof...call me all the names you want, but you guys have been lying since the outset.

Have you ever SEEN a volcano erupting?

I have. Mt St Helens. Do you know that that CO2 and ash created a cloud that shut down the airspace in three states and two provinces? The ash was up to four feet deep and covered about 16 thousand square miles.

Stop reading the lies and come and visit a glacier ..a GROWING glacier that geologists say will endanger a small village in 40 to 50 years. But no one will listen 'cause we all KNOW glaciers are shrinking.......it's true because YOU SHOUTED LOUDER

And those in-concrete markers we laid eight years ago, now half buried is the case of somebody having moved them because the global warming liars say that glacier is shrinking....that this is a "normal situation" for a shrinking glacier because its "slipping down" the mountain. Never mind that no less than three teams have documented it is getting thicker every year...that's, don't concern yourself with that, that's just a phenomenon.."

 

that's a loser's position...forum rules of debate...make a claim back it up with evidence...I didn't make the baseless claim
and roy L someone from the denier side of the debate at least had the honesty and integrity to admit the claim was a fabrication and Roy graciously posted a link to the info...Roy has my respect for that...

wow the conspiracy theory becomes ever more convoluted...vulcanologist are in on it as well....

yet more conspiracy...eew the intrigue gets deeper..of coarse we're all part of socialist global conspiracy to steal your money and now you've exposed our nefarious plot..

it's obvious you haven't the knowledge to understand the IPCC's latest report...the conspiracy disease has clouded your reasoning ability...

 

Classic warmerist debate tactic.. Start out with something that may appear scientific, and before it can be tested, end it with an emotional outburst with feigned outrage or doomspeak.. LOL

The fact you ignored the post showing you that scientists whose very careers depend on studying such volcanic activity, told you that "...after Pinatubo, the whole planet cooled for a couple of years, and it looked as though global warming was not happening. " and "this aerosol effect likely masked the past 20 years of global warming.".. Shows how little you are interested in the science...

 

hey don't bother replying to my posts because nothing you post has any relevance...you want pretend you're a science whiz but you don't even comprehend basic science overextending your science comprehension by a considerable amount... you didn't know how a thermos bottle worked or that air is an insulator something most kids learn in about grade 6 or 7 science, you didn't know a CO2 was a confirmed GHG something that's been know since the 19th century...how can one begin to have a intelligent exchange of ideas when one individual(you) is so lacking in the basics and is totally unaware of it(classic Dunning-Kruger Effect)...

how revealing you post something that confirms AGW and you have no idea what you posted or it's significance...

 

Dude how long are going to try and tell that same lie? You have been told you were wrong, by me and several other people, and you have been shown why you are wrong, yet every time you get caught lacking you try and make this same claim.. ROFL, you're ridiculous man..

How unsurprising it is that you deny that the scientists in that previous which you ignored, tell you point blank how wrong your assumptions were,and you pretend it didn't happen and keep on talking..

 

Ah the world wide conspiracy to sell the notion that glaciers are shrinking. I wonder who the puppet master of glacial shrinkology is.

 

People like you are dude... You see anything on climate being our fault and you gobble it up.. No need to point out that some glaciers grow and some shrink all the time, you can't be bothered by that..

 

I think it is about 10-1 on the shrink side. But that gets into average effects and I don't want to throw you. You're right, glaciers grow and shrink and chuck the rest.

 

and that's why it's called climate change and global warming...global warming misleads people to believe it will get warmer everywhere...climate change allows that weather patterns can and will change so some regions may get colder, or wetter or dryer...

 

got any evidence of that 10 to 1 claim?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

 

LOL,it took you 3 days to come up with a warmer blog to agree with you??? I suppose it's my fault for not specifying a reliable source...

LOL,okay.. Do you have anything that is actually reliable and scientific and not from a cartoonist turned warmer blog? I guess this will take a week?

 

not surprisingly considering how you struggle with basic science clicking on the links to sources for dingo's link must be a challenge for you......deliberate self induced ignorance, just how far in the sand can bury your head...

 

No it took me about two minutes after you asked. Only a denialist would call Skeptical Science "warmist", a sad word, obviously feebly trying to counter the real identification of anti-scientific denialism.

 

and the links to the sources for the article are right there...refusing to click on the links to the studies defines denialism...it's self induced ignorance for ideological reasons not objectivity...

 

Agreed. I'm inclined to think most of these denialist folks get their "scientific" information from right wing radio and Fox News, supplemented by a host of denialist sites on the internet. None of these sources appear to have any relevant scientific background.

 

No silly man, I clicked on his link (singular) and found it went to skeptical science blog.. The man who runs the site is a former cartoonist who now makes money pretending to be a climate expert, and even embarrassed himself by claiming 97% of 32% is actually 97%... LOL, not surprised you don't know what the site is...

 

Minutes huh? LOL, I posted my response on the 8th dude.. Your response came on the 11th, that's 3 days.. ROFL...


Another warmer who doesn't know who is on his side.. You guys really need to keep up..John cook runs the site. He's a cartoonist who now plays pretend expert on climate science...

He even admitted as much on his sites"about page" until someone commented on it and he changed it. Now you have to look up the archive..

http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

LOL his new and improved "cover up" about page is a lot less open and honest...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

Anybody willing to lie and exaggerate as well as blatantly mislead people about themselves like that, is NOT trustworthy, and certainly not someone I trust to represent scientific credibility, no matter what scientific papers he claims to take his info from.. The mans a con-artist, and you two are his latest suckers..

Want more on him? Sure why not...

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

 

Gosh that's worth rolling over the floor laughing. I posted my response right after I read your question. Is that such a toughie?

As your own quote showed the sources are solid. What about "the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature" don't you get?

 

Sure ya did, You posted 3 days after the fact, despite being on here every day.. You got caught and decided to try again later..

WHy edit out the quotes then dude? LOL, don't worry man, we know. Your "scientific source" is a cartoonist turned blog writer playing scientist,and you fell for it.. ROFL..

 

I replied to your post the first time I read it. I really don't care whether you believe that. What's interesting is your obsession with nonsubstantive nonsense. No doubt you know you have lost the fight for your denialist silliness and just want to take it out on somebody.

Have a nice day and try to find something real to talk about.

 

and he still hasn't clicked on the links...how many days has it been now...

 

Sorry guys but having one-sided conversations here is pointless. The two of you can insult me all day and it's acceptable, but I even imply something that may hurt your feelings and it gets deleted.. No point in talking anymore..

 

what converstion ! 3 days on we're still waiting for you to click on the link and you're still whining yammering about nothing trying to avoid the awkward truth... you refuse to look at the link why , because you're WRONG and you know it...

So instead of having a "conversation" you choose (to borrow a line from monty python's Holy grail)...run away! run away!

 

No silly man your link was from real climate, and that is a warmer blog made by a cartoonist playing climate scientist, and we went over that in a few posts junior... But if you would rather pretend I am running away from your cartoonist please be my guest..