Remember me
▼ Content

Leaked UN draft report warns of urgent need to cut global warming



Page 1 of 212>
Leaked UN draft report warns of urgent need to cut global warming16-06-2018 02:07
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Another 'Russian hack' no doubt, those damned commies ...

"The world is on track to exceed 1.5C of warming unless countries rapidly implement "far-reaching" actions to reduce carbon emissions, according to a draft UN report leaked to Reuters.

The final draft report from the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) was due for publication in October.

Human-induced warming would exceed 1.5C by about 2040 if emissions continued at their present rate, the report found, but countries could keep warming below that level if they made "rapid and far-reaching" changes ..."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/15/leaked-un-draft-report-warns-of-urgent-need-to-cut-global-warming

lol bullshit, no they can't ...

"Global temperature is rapidly approaching the 1.5°C Paris target. In this study, we find that in the absence of external cooling influences, such as volcanic eruptions, the midpoint of the spread of temperature projections exceeds the 1.5°C target before 2029, based on temperatures relative to 1850–1900..."
Trajectories toward the 1.5°C Paris target: Modulation by the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073480


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
16-06-2018 20:21
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1128)
1.5c over what?
Edited on 16-06-2018 20:21
16-06-2018 22:21
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
An average of some numbers from a while back that proves useful.
17-06-2018 09:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1128)
monckton wrote:
An average of some numbers from a while back that proves useful.


When???

Is there any meaning in this without that bit of information?
17-06-2018 13:47
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Oh I doubt it.
17-06-2018 14:19
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
monckton wrote:
Oh I doubt it.



...Statistical analysis is something they don't seem to understand. This is based on logic. Why does this matter ? Because itn uses logic to falsify science.

This leads us to consider the concept of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states what we would expect purely from chance alone, in the absence of anything interesting (such as a trend) in the data.

..This demonstrates that from the beginning that logic is used to void any meaning in the data collected. This means that when data collected, if it is argued that nothing is has changed then it will be similar to the previous data collected. Then we have a null hypothesis.
..Then if the new data varies from the previously collected data then the null hypothesis has been falsified. What does this mean ? That itn can now falsify logic. He can correct this post and falsify what a hypothesis and a null hypothesis are. He can also falsify that when logic is used to consider data that has been collected that this is not science. He will argue that when logic is used to consider how data and physical events are considered that it is not science.
..To many baseball fans they would want to know if all of the stats that they keep in baseball and analyze ad nauseum are just random numbers. In sports such information is called metrics.
met·rics
[ˈmetriks]
NOUN
the use or study of poetic meters; prosody.
a method of measuring something, or the results obtained from this.
"the report provides various metrics at the class and method level"

..This link is to;
.Review of Basic Statistical Analysis Methods for Analyzing Data - Part 1
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/123
Edited on 17-06-2018 14:23
17-06-2018 14:36
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
I was going to rest his case and give him the 'win'.
Feel sorry for the poor bastards after watching that Joe Rogan clip.
Made me want to play Taps again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI
17-06-2018 16:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
monckton wrote:
I was going to rest his case and give him the 'win'.
Feel sorry for the poor bastards after watching that Joe Rogan clip.
Made me want to play Taps again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI


I'm trying to picture you resting your "case" or more accurately, lack of case. When you have to rely upon youtube videos for your knowledge you seem to leap over the overwhelming number of videos by much greater experts saying the exact opposite.
17-06-2018 20:39
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Go on, bring one of them clowns out, lets have a laugh.
17-06-2018 23:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
monckton wrote:
Go on, bring one of them clowns out, lets have a laugh.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVodjhoP5No&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ36ded2Wc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4AAN0H8MRg

After you peruse these (which of course you have no intentions of doing) you may go out onto your protest march to murder one third of the poor people of the globe.
Edited on 17-06-2018 23:47
18-06-2018 00:32
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Well they had it coming.

In the first, boldly titled ...

Climate change hoax proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVodjhoP5No

... why is renowned climate scientist 'Spaceshot76' comparing Global Land Ocean temperatures to earlier measurements for the Northern Hemisphere, intending to prove a point by illustrating a difference - when coincidentally there doesn't seem to be much difference for the period that can be compared?

Spaceshot76 - not you is it, didn't you use to boast about working with rockets or something?
Either way it's tripe 0/10. Fail.
18-06-2018 01:07
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
The Climate Change Hoax, with Professor Willie Soon at Camp Constitution 7-3-17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk

Willie Soon.
No he won't, sponsored content. Fail.

"Soon's funding is highly unusual at the Smithsonian in its association with private interests. It included at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation which is associated with the oil industry and $469,560 from the Southern Company which uses coal to generate electricity. Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute also provided funding, which was later replaced by anonymous donors through the Donors Trust, a donor-advised fund that offers anonymity to clients who do not wish to make their donations public. The latter was identified by a 2013 Drexel University study as the largest single provider of money to political efforts to fight climate-change policy. A 2008 contract agreed to by the CfA required the institute to notify the Southern Company before disclosing that Southern had provided funding, and both the CfA and Willie Soon to provide Southern with advance copies of any publications "for comment and input", though the company could not block publications or require changes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#2015:_Allegations_of_disclosure_violations

And hey, check out this bunch of shitkickers ...

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Plenty for you to go through there to keep you away from hick youtubers, bring us some gems.
18-06-2018 01:45
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY - Dan Pena
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0

"... in the cosmos of time, it's not a fart in the wind ... motherf*cker"

He's a lively old c*nt isn't he?
Here's some of his other stuff ...

Special Episode: How Do I Get The F*cking Money? | Ask The 50 Billion Dollar Man by Dan Peña
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjcIRQuCXr0

New Age philosophy aside, he rests his case on the Florida real estate market, they wouldn't sell you a house if it was going to flood ...

"A state built on real estate speculation, whose chief attribute was proximity to the water, now faces a whole new problem: There's not enough land, high enough above the water, for its residents to pull back from the rising seas. By the end of the century, database company Zillow Group estimates, almost a half-million Miami homes could be—literally—underwater. That's more than anywhere else in the country.

In a working paper posted this month on Social Science Research Network, an online repository of academic research, professors from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Pennsylvania State University found that homes exposed to sea-level rise sell at a 7 percent discount compared with equivalent but unexposed properties.

"This discount has grown over time," the authors wrote, "and is driven by sophisticated buyers and communities worried about global warming." Properties along both coasts of Florida are at risk of sea-level rise, mapping in the paper shows.

Marla Martin, a spokeswoman for Florida Realtors, which represents the state's real estate agents, wasn't available to comment ...

... The region's frothy home values, Slap said, have persisted because of what he calls "a dirty little secret" among real estate agents, who are aware of the flood risks but face no requirement to disclose them to buyers."


Florida Could Be Close to a Real Estate Reckoning
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2018/01/02/475789.htm

He lives in a Castle in Scotland, cross dresses, and hosts weddings.
His record is 7 Brides ...



Fail.
18-06-2018 09:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
monckton wrote:
An average of some numbers from a while back that proves useful.


Averages like this are meaningless. Statistical math is not just simple averaging.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 10:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
monckton wrote:
Oh I doubt it.



...Statistical analysis is something they don't seem to understand.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
This is based on logic. Why does this matter ? Because itn uses logic to falsify science.
Logic does not falsify science. Neither can be falsified.
James___ wrote:
This leads us to consider the concept of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states what we would expect purely from chance alone, in the absence of anything interesting (such as a trend) in the data.

Not the definition of the null hypothesis.
..This demonstrates that from the beginning that logic is used to void any meaning in the data collected.[/quote]
WRONG. Math is.
James___ wrote:
This means that when data collected, if it is argued that nothing is has changed then it will be similar to the previous data collected.

It means nothing.
James___ wrote:
Then we have a null hypothesis.
Not the definition of the null hypothesis.
James___ wrote:
.Then if the new data varies from the previously collected data then the null hypothesis has been falsified.
You can't falsify a hypothesis. You can only falsify a theory, if the theory is a theory of science. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
James___ wrote:
What does this mean ?

That you have no idea what you're talking about.
James___ wrote:
that itn can now falsify logic.
You cannot falsify logic.
James___ wrote:
He can correct this post and falsify what a hypothesis and a null hypothesis are.
You can't falsify a hypothesis.
James___ wrote:
He can also falsify that when logic is used to consider data that has been collected that this is not science.

Data must meet certain criteria, which I've listed, to be considered valid data. Science is not data, even if the data is valid. Data is the result of an observation.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not data.

James___ wrote:
He will argue that when logic is used to consider how data and physical events are considered that it is not science.
Logic is not used here. Philosophy is. Science is not data. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
James___ wrote:
.To many baseball fans they would want to know if all of the stats that they keep in baseball and analyze ad nauseum are just random numbers. In sports such information is called metrics.
...deleted redundancy...

Baseball stats are not science.

You DO like to make shit up.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 10:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
Go on, bring one of them clowns out, lets have a laugh.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVodjhoP5No&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ36ded2Wc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4AAN0H8MRg

After you peruse these (which of course you have no intentions of doing) you may go out onto your protest march to murder one third of the poor people of the globe.


Holy Link War!

To monckton especially:

Present your argument (if you have any). Endless Holy Links are summarily discarded. It is the sign of weak thinking. Learn to think for yourself and make your own arguments instead of stealing the arguments of others.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 14:09
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
I have no argument, I agree with the scientific consensus on man made global warming aka climate change.
18-06-2018 14:12
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
monckton wrote:
Oh I doubt it.



...Statistical analysis is something they don't seem to understand.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
This is based on logic. Why does this matter ? Because itn uses logic to falsify science.
Logic does not falsify science. Neither can be falsified.
James___ wrote:
This leads us to consider the concept of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis states what we would expect purely from chance alone, in the absence of anything interesting (such as a trend) in the data.

Not the definition of the null hypothesis.
..This demonstrates that from the beginning that logic is used to void any meaning in the data collected.

WRONG. Math is.
James___ wrote:
This means that when data collected, if it is argued that nothing is has changed then it will be similar to the previous data collected.

It means nothing.
James___ wrote:
Then we have a null hypothesis.
Not the definition of the null hypothesis.
James___ wrote:
.Then if the new data varies from the previously collected data then the null hypothesis has been falsified.
You can't falsify a hypothesis. You can only falsify a theory, if the theory is a theory of science. A hypothesis stems from a theory, not the other way around.
James___ wrote:
What does this mean ?

That you have no idea what you're talking about.
James___ wrote:
that itn can now falsify logic.
You cannot falsify logic.
James___ wrote:
He can correct this post and falsify what a hypothesis and a null hypothesis are.
You can't falsify a hypothesis.
James___ wrote:
He can also falsify that when logic is used to consider data that has been collected that this is not science.

Data must meet certain criteria, which I've listed, to be considered valid data. Science is not data, even if the data is valid. Data is the result of an observation.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not data.

James___ wrote:
He will argue that when logic is used to consider how data and physical events are considered that it is not science.
Logic is not used here. Philosophy is. Science is not data. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
James___ wrote:
.To many baseball fans they would want to know if all of the stats that they keep in baseball and analyze ad nauseum are just random numbers. In sports such information is called metrics.
...deleted redundancy...

Baseball stats are not science.

You DO like to make shit up.[/quote]


...More buzzwords and circular arguments ad nauseum. Mustn't have an opinion of his own. Just a HATER. I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change while itn is only disruptive.
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot. Either that or itn needs a boyfriend and he's in here henpecking his boyfriends like a love starved woman. His behavior is completely irrational unless he's looking for a mate.
18-06-2018 18:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
monckton wrote:
I have no argument,

Then you have nothing to say. You have no mind of your own.
monckton wrote:
I agree with the scientific consensus

There is no such thing. Science doesn't use consensus. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
monckton wrote:
on man made global warming aka climate change.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular arguments. These are meaningless buzzwords. Science has no theory based on a void argument.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 18:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
James___ wrote:
...More buzzwords
No buzzwords.
James___ wrote:
and circular arguments
No circular arguments.
James___ wrote:
ad nauseum.

Fallacy fallacy, dude. That is itself a fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Mustn't have an opinion of his own.

??? I WANT you to have an opinion of your own. I WANT you to form your own arguments.
James___ wrote:
Just a HATER.

Insult fallacy.
James___ wrote:
I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change

He didn't. He got banned for spamming.
James___ wrote:
while itn is only disruptive.

You figure any opinion different than yours is disruptive??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
James___ wrote:
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot.
...deleted insults.

We get along reasonably well. We are not close friends. Branner has a forum to run. He will remove disruptive people. Spamming is disruptive.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 18:37
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
...More buzzwords and circular arguments ad nauseum. Mustn't have an opinion of his own. Just a HATER. I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change while itn is only disruptive.
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot. Either that or itn needs a boyfriend and he's in here henpecking his boyfriends like a love starved woman. His behavior is completely irrational unless he's looking for a mate.


James, by this time I would think that you'd be less bothered by Nightmare after he continues to show that he doesn't even know what statistical analysis is let alone have the ability to provide it.
18-06-2018 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
...More buzzwords and circular arguments ad nauseum. Mustn't have an opinion of his own. Just a HATER. I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change while itn is only disruptive.
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot. Either that or itn needs a boyfriend and he's in here henpecking his boyfriends like a love starved woman. His behavior is completely irrational unless he's looking for a mate.


James, by this time I would think that you'd be less bothered by Nightmare after he continues to show that he doesn't even know what statistical analysis is let alone have the ability to provide it.


Argument of the stone fallacy. I have provided it. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 22:34
James___
★★☆☆☆
(371)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
...More buzzwords and circular arguments ad nauseum. Mustn't have an opinion of his own. Just a HATER. I think it's funny that litesong got banned for posting about climate change while itn is only disruptive.
..Branner must be a very close friend of itn's which makes the point of this forum moot. Either that or itn needs a boyfriend and he's in here henpecking his boyfriends like a love starved woman. His behavior is completely irrational unless he's looking for a mate.


James, by this time I would think that you'd be less bothered by Nightmare after he continues to show that he doesn't even know what statistical analysis is let alone have the ability to provide it.



...Wake,
.Ever watch "A Christmas Story" ? The kid said Red Rider BB Gun and thought the class should love him for it ? That's itn's logic. He posted something and we should praise him for it. Just a legend in his own mind.
19-06-2018 00:28
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote: Argument of the stone fallacy. I have provided it. Inversion fallacy.


Another use of words from "The Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart". It ain't working.
19-06-2018 07:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Argument of the stone fallacy. I have provided it. Inversion fallacy.


Another use of words from "The Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart". It ain't working.


Fallacy fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2018 11:19
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
"Isn't it rich?...."
19-06-2018 15:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."


You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............
19-06-2018 17:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."


You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............


Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).


The Parrot Killer
09-07-2018 10:26
RenaissanceMan
☆☆☆☆☆
(38)
Wake wrote:


After you peruse these (which of course you have no intentions of doing) you may go out onto your protest march to murder one third of the poor people of the globe.


Wake up. The world's poor would very much love to enjoy electricity, produced in most countries by burning coal, air conditioning, a motor scooter, much less a personal car, all of which we westerners take for granted.

The world's poor could care less about your grandiose pretenses to *save the world* by imposing carbon taxes, raising the price of all energy sources, and otherwise screwing everything up with Eco-Hypocrisy and fraud called *science*.

Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas, by far. Learn that and stop squealing like a Hillary. (wink, nudge)
09-07-2018 15:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."


You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............


Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).


I was just thinking of your insane ignorance which you love so much to spread. Last year when I said that the California destructive fires occurred in such a manner that it had to be a firebug. That fires do not start going up-wind.

What did you say? That it was from the PG&E power lines. In another instance you, from Seattle were telling ME who live here that PG&E transformers for underground power lines were also underground. I got a good laugh over that as I bicycled past the surface transformer stations for underground power lines.

This year again we had fires starting; and again going upwind. This time they caught the firebug setting them as I noted these fires had to be set by. It was an illegal alien caught red handed.

Why don't you tell us a whole lot more about things you can't even conceive of but are more than willing to stick your stupidity into?

What this world needs is a whole lot less ignorance of the type you represent - where people with no knowledge like to pretend they have more than the world's most profound scientists. From your positition of importance in an airplane hanger.
09-07-2018 15:55
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


After you peruse these (which of course you have no intentions of doing) you may go out onto your protest march to murder one third of the poor people of the globe.


Wake up. The world's poor would very much love to enjoy electricity, produced in most countries by burning coal, air conditioning, a motor scooter, much less a personal car, all of which we westerners take for granted.

The world's poor could care less about your grandiose pretenses to *save the world* by imposing carbon taxes, raising the price of all energy sources, and otherwise screwing everything up with Eco-Hypocrisy and fraud called *science*.

Water vapor is THE dominant greenhouse gas, by far. Learn that and stop squealing like a Hillary. (wink, nudge)
Counterfeit Monckton who is such a coward and a slimebag that he would steal the good name of someone would be perfectly happy murdering world population by the millions. That is the leftist take on things.

Even this morning my wife showed me an article about central African weather patterns which bounce from drought to heavy rains and the article said that they had to get ready for climate change.

There is nothing these crumbs wouldn't hope to do than scare the third world. I would really love to run across this "monckton" poster and I can absolutely guarantee you that he would never again post under the name of someone else.
09-07-2018 17:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."


You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............


Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).


I was just thinking of your insane ignorance which you love so much to spread. Last year when I said that the California destructive fires occurred in such a manner that it had to be a firebug. That fires do not start going up-wind.

What did you say? That it was from the PG&E power lines.

The Sonoma fires WERE from the PG&E power lines.
Wake wrote:
In another instance you, from Seattle were telling ME who live here that PG&E transformers for underground power lines were also underground.

Why do you insist on lying, Wake? I never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
I got a good laugh over that as I bicycled past the surface transformer stations for underground power lines.

Hope you enjoyed your laugh.
Wake wrote:
This year again we had fires starting; and again going upwind. This time they caught the firebug setting them as I noted these fires had to be set by. It was an illegal alien caught red handed.

Good. Hope they nail his hide to the wall.
Wake wrote:
Why don't you tell us a whole lot more about things you can't even conceive of but are more than willing to stick your stupidity into?

What this world needs is a whole lot less ignorance of the type you represent - where people with no knowledge like to pretend they have more than the world's most profound scientists.

Science isn't scientists, Wake. Science is set of falsifiable theories. Consensus and supporting evidence aren't used in science.

You are assuming that all scientists have the same opinion. Bigotry.
Wake wrote:
From your positition of importance in an airplane hanger.

Doesn't matter what my credentials are, or yours. Credentials mean nothing on forums. My aircraft work is my hobby, dumbass. I've already told you.


The Parrot Killer
09-07-2018 18:19
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."


You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............


Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).


I was just thinking of your insane ignorance which you love so much to spread. Last year when I said that the California destructive fires occurred in such a manner that it had to be a firebug. That fires do not start going up-wind.

What did you say? That it was from the PG&E power lines.

The Sonoma fires WERE from the PG&E power lines.
Wake wrote:
In another instance you, from Seattle were telling ME who live here that PG&E transformers for underground power lines were also underground.

Why do you insist on lying, Wake? I never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
I got a good laugh over that as I bicycled past the surface transformer stations for underground power lines.

Hope you enjoyed your laugh.
Wake wrote:
This year again we had fires starting; and again going upwind. This time they caught the firebug setting them as I noted these fires had to be set by. It was an illegal alien caught red handed.

Good. Hope they nail his hide to the wall.
Wake wrote:
Why don't you tell us a whole lot more about things you can't even conceive of but are more than willing to stick your stupidity into?

What this world needs is a whole lot less ignorance of the type you represent - where people with no knowledge like to pretend they have more than the world's most profound scientists.

Science isn't scientists, Wake. Science is set of falsifiable theories. Consensus and supporting evidence aren't used in science.

You are assuming that all scientists have the same opinion. Bigotry.
Wake wrote:
From your positition of importance in an airplane hanger.

Doesn't matter what my credentials are, or yours. Credentials mean nothing on forums. My aircraft work is my hobby, dumbass. I've already told you.


The Sonoma fires occurred EXACTLY as these did: starting from the south and starting at a driving time from one to the other. Going upwind and at equal distances. But you're too stupid to be able to figure that out.

PG&E was nothing more than a source of insurance to cover the costs of rebuilding. Your kind of plan.

You grow funnier by the minute since after you said that when they plant underground utility lines that the transformers are underground as well that I actually took pictures of those transformer stations above ground and sealed from molestation.

Your pouring out one lie after the other gets better all the time. You know so little about real science that it is preposterous for you to so much as give an opinion let along your stupid hard and fast rules.

Tell me you POS - falsify the age of the Universe.
09-07-2018 20:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
"Isn't it rich?...."


You'd think that he could take at least one step back and look at his own postings.

He has some things correct but it appears to be almost by accident. In another posting he argues that heat as we know it on Earth isn't light - it is infrared light..............


Compositional error, Wake. Why do you insist on going this direction? I thought you knew better.

Heat can be by conduction, convection, or radiance. It does not have to be light at all. If it IS radiance, it is infrared light (or lower).


I was just thinking of your insane ignorance which you love so much to spread. Last year when I said that the California destructive fires occurred in such a manner that it had to be a firebug. That fires do not start going up-wind.

What did you say? That it was from the PG&E power lines.

The Sonoma fires WERE from the PG&E power lines.
Wake wrote:
In another instance you, from Seattle were telling ME who live here that PG&E transformers for underground power lines were also underground.

Why do you insist on lying, Wake? I never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
I got a good laugh over that as I bicycled past the surface transformer stations for underground power lines.

Hope you enjoyed your laugh.
Wake wrote:
This year again we had fires starting; and again going upwind. This time they caught the firebug setting them as I noted these fires had to be set by. It was an illegal alien caught red handed.

Good. Hope they nail his hide to the wall.
Wake wrote:
Why don't you tell us a whole lot more about things you can't even conceive of but are more than willing to stick your stupidity into?

What this world needs is a whole lot less ignorance of the type you represent - where people with no knowledge like to pretend they have more than the world's most profound scientists.

Science isn't scientists, Wake. Science is set of falsifiable theories. Consensus and supporting evidence aren't used in science.

You are assuming that all scientists have the same opinion. Bigotry.
Wake wrote:
From your positition of importance in an airplane hanger.

Doesn't matter what my credentials are, or yours. Credentials mean nothing on forums. My aircraft work is my hobby, dumbass. I've already told you.


The Sonoma fires occurred EXACTLY as these did: starting from the south and starting at a driving time from one to the other. Going upwind and at equal distances. But you're too stupid to be able to figure that out.

Nope. They started from downed PG&E lines that were not well maintained.
Wake wrote:
PG&E was nothing more than a source of insurance to cover the costs of rebuilding. Your kind of plan.
Nonsense statement.
Wake wrote:
You grow funnier by the minute since after you said that when they plant underground utility lines that the transformers are underground as well that I actually took pictures of those transformer stations above ground and sealed from molestation.
Still trying to make this lie?
Wake wrote:
Your pouring out one lie after the other gets better all the time.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is lying.
Wake wrote:
You know so little about real science that it is preposterous for you to so much as give an opinion let along your stupid hard and fast rules.

Followed by general insults. You still deny science as well as the math, just like any believer in the Church of Global Warming.
Wake wrote:
Tell me you POS - falsify the age of the Universe.

Not falsifiable. Not science either.


The Parrot Killer
09-07-2018 20:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote: All of his usual stupidity


You are a dumbass and will never grow out of it. You and monckton are two of a kind.
11-07-2018 03:16
CoolCucumber
☆☆☆☆☆
(27)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: All of his usual stupidity


You are a dumbass and will never grow out of it. You and monckton are two of a kind.


THEY KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE FOR MONEY!

To the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States of America,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:


On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE

Only rising.
Edited on 11-07-2018 03:27
11-07-2018 15:15
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
CoolCucumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: All of his usual stupidity


You are a dumbass and will never grow out of it. You and monckton are two of a kind.


THEY KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE FOR MONEY!

To the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States of America,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:


On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE

Only rising.



Hey, look, another of nightmare's buddies with their insanity. You are neither and architect nor engineer. You certainly know nothing about the event surrounding 9/11 nor the total and complete investigation of it.
11-07-2018 18:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
CoolCucumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: All of his usual stupidity


You are a dumbass and will never grow out of it. You and monckton are two of a kind.


THEY KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE FOR MONEY!

To the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate of the United States of America,

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT:


On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE

Only rising.



Hey, look, another of nightmare's buddies with their insanity. You are neither and architect nor engineer. You certainly know nothing about the event surrounding 9/11 nor the total and complete investigation of it.


As usual, Wake, you are completely out to lunch.

I never argued that explosives were used on the WTC. I argue quite the opposite, in fact.

No further waste of money and time is required research the WTC collapse. All three buildings collapsed due to fire, as all steel lattice construction does when exposed to large uncontrolled fires.


The Parrot Killer
11-07-2018 21:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
As usual, Wake, you are completely out to lunch.

I never argued that explosives were used on the WTC. I argue quite the opposite, in fact.

No further waste of money and time is required research the WTC collapse. All three buildings collapsed due to fire, as all steel lattice construction does when exposed to large uncontrolled fires.

I never said you did. But in a like ignorant and totally stupid manner you're telling us about PG&E power lines when you live in Seattle and the fires occurred in Sonoma County, CA. What sort of fool does that? After saying that when you have underground power lines that transformer facilities are also underground you turned right around and said that you never said that. You are as crackpot as the 9/11ers and their FBI theories. I'd say you weren't playing with a full deck but you don't have any cards at all.
11-07-2018 21:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
As usual, Wake, you are completely out to lunch.

I never argued that explosives were used on the WTC. I argue quite the opposite, in fact.

No further waste of money and time is required research the WTC collapse. All three buildings collapsed due to fire, as all steel lattice construction does when exposed to large uncontrolled fires.

I never said you did.

Yes you did. You say it again in this post.
Wake wrote:
But in a like ignorant and totally stupid manner you're telling us about PG&E power lines when you live in Seattle and the fires occurred in Sonoma County, CA. What sort of fool does that?

The sort of fool that knows how those fires started.
Wake wrote:
After saying that when you have underground power lines that transformer facilities are also underground you turned right around and said that you never said that.

You still trying to push this lie too?
Wake wrote:
You are as crackpot as the 9/11ers and their FBI theories.

There. You said it again.
Wake wrote:
I'd say you weren't playing with a full deck but you don't have any cards at all.

Who's the guy depending on insulting others? Hint: YOU are! (okay, obvious hint)


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Leaked UN draft report warns of urgent need to cut global warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
'Carbon bubble' could spark global financial crisis, study warns510-06-2018 12:54
"Active" hydraulic draft accelerators fuel less generators211-05-2018 15:25
Indonesia Field Report On Wildlife Trafficking And Illegal Fishing As The Last Twitch? Discussed By Crown311-04-2018 01:27
White House approves report - humans are causing global warming - starkly contradicts Trump - Nov 2017419-01-2018 22:14
New Federal Report, Approved by White House, Predicts 5C Rise by 21007318-11-2017 17:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact