Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #165 - Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:38pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

No - if you were a "sceptic", you would be able to mount some sort of coherent arguement as to why virtually the entire global scientific community is wrong in its acceptance of the long-standing theory that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission are impacting upon the planet's climate.

You can't

You simply deny the existance of the evidence.

You are a denier.
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

70 years ago the consensus in physics was that there was an 'ether' propogating E radiation. they were wrong. and the proof is schoolboy level. not a good example of hte valueof consensus.

70 years ago the consensus in physics that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would impact upon the planet's climate.

And that consensus has grown stronger ever since.

nice deflection and best of all 70 years ago science was predicting global cooling. so even when you deflect, you lie. bummer huh?

but please... tell us how consenus proves your point and how ether is real and that there is no subatomic structure and all the other universally held 'truths' from the past.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #166 - Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:40pm

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

Even if they consider that there is a small chance that the pollution we have been pumping into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is harmful the denialists would still rather keep on chugging away than admit that it would be far more prudent to put a halt to the polluting asap and invest in the research and development of cleaner and more sustainable alternatives.
This is why we are far better off ignoring the denialists...
There will always be an element of society that is self destructive and we should fight against them bringing the rest of us down with them.
One simple question..why not be prudent and invest in clean renewable energy sources instead of continuing to pump pollution into the atmosphere..even if there is just a tiny chance that all this pollution isn't good for us or the planet.

so the ends justifies the means? or a well-meaning lie is better than truth?

you sold your soul for what?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 137481
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #167 - Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:43pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

No - if you were a "sceptic", you would be able to mount some sort of coherent arguement as to why virtually the entire global scientific community is wrong in its acceptance of the long-standing theory that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission are impacting upon the planet's climate.

You can't

You simply deny the existance of the evidence.

You are a denier.
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

1. I'm a a sceptic. I do not deny the existence of the evidence. Once again you are telling lies (you love to call other people liars but you seem to be the biggest liar in this forum). I have said on several occasions that the AGW alarmists have presented lots of evidence. Never denied it at all, and you have nothing to demonstrate otherwise. Once again, I am a sceptic: I do not deny the chance that the AGW hypothesis may be correct, however, currently I doubt that it is (and I don't need to mount any sort of counter argument to hold this belief - sorry, but that's the way it is). I'm making this as clear as I possibly can, so I don't expect any more lies from you on this matter.

2. I have no problem with carbon taxes because I may indeed be wrong about AGW: the hypothesis may be correct. So, seeing as the carbon tax has no negative affect on me I have absolutely no problem with such a precautionary measure, just in case I'm wrong. I'm not really sure why you can't understand this. I suppose you were just making assumptions again. Just because I'm sceptical of the AGW hypothesis you immediately think that I'm a right winger who listens to Alan Jones and is opposed to a carbon tax. Well, you'd be wrong to assume that.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #168 - Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:44pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

you could try a little contextual commentary. noone here is denying that the planet has warmed. No One. most however ARE denying that it is STILL warming and in fact, the evidence says that it isnt. We are also denying thet human-driven notion.

so try and at least represent us with the intellectual honesty your religious ACC heroes do not use themselves.

Wow - I hope you have reversing beepers on while you back-peddle!

So now you are telling us the earth HAS warmed!

Then you would expect glaciers to recede, wouldn't you.

Why did you write:
"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please show us evidence to support this statement of admit that you were telling a lie.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #169 - Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:49pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:07pm:

The denialists are arguing that we should continue to pollute like theres no tomorrow and there will never be a downside to it.
The rest of us are calling them out for the bullshitters they are.

1. I'm not a "denialist", I am an AGW sceptic.

No - if you were a "sceptic", you would be able to mount some sort of coherent arguement as to why virtually the entire global scientific community is wrong in its acceptance of the long-standing theory that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission are impacting upon the planet's climate.

You can't

You simply deny the existance of the evidence.

You are a denier.
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 5:12pm:

2. I certainly am not "arguing that we should continue to pollute like there's no tomorrow". I have always maintained that I have no problem with carbon taxes or any other precautionary measures.

Why do you "have no problem with carbon taxes " if you accept the overwhelming evidence that carbon emissions are impacting upon climate?

70 years ago the consensus in physics was that there was an 'ether' propogating E radiation. they were wrong. and the proof is schoolboy level. not a good example of hte valueof consensus.

70 years ago the consensus in physics that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would impact upon the planet's climate.

And that consensus has grown stronger ever since.

nice deflection and best of all 70 years ago science was predicting global cooling. so even when you deflect, you lie. bummer huh?

but please... tell us how consenus proves your point and how ether is real and that there is no subatomic structure and all the other universally held 'truths' from the past.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you need to tell lies you promote your argument.

Why did you write:
"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please show us evidence to support this statement of admit that you were telling a lie.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #170 - Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:44pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

you could try a little contextual commentary. noone here is denying that the planet has warmed. No One. most however ARE denying that it is STILL warming and in fact, the evidence says that it isnt. We are also denying thet human-driven notion.

so try and at least represent us with the intellectual honesty your religious ACC heroes do not use themselves.

Wow - I hope you have reversing beepers on while you back-peddle!

So now you are telling us the earth HAS warmed!

Then you would expect glaciers to recede, wouldn't you.

Why did you write:
"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please show us evidence to support this statement of admit that you were telling a lie.

Ive been saying that the entire time you dimwitted dumb-bunny. You are so blinded by your religious doctrine that you cannot even understand the words people say to you. but in the last 16 years warming has stopped. Now even to a moron like you that last sentence shoudl be able to imply i believe warming has happened.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #171 - Jan 7^th, 2013 at 12:42pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:44pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 6^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

you could try a little contextual commentary. noone here is denying that the planet has warmed. No One. most however ARE denying that it is STILL warming and in fact, the evidence says that it isnt. We are also denying thet human-driven notion.

so try and at least represent us with the intellectual honesty your religious ACC heroes do not use themselves.

Wow - I hope you have reversing beepers on while you back-peddle!

So now you are telling us the earth HAS warmed!

Then you would expect glaciers to recede, wouldn't you.

Why did you write:
"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please show us evidence to support this statement of admit that you were telling a lie.

Ive been saying that the entire time you dimwitted dumb-bunny. You are so blinded by your religious doctrine that you cannot even understand the words people say to you. but in the last 16 years warming has stopped. Now even to a moron like you that last sentence shoudl be able to imply i believe warming has happened.

So - " in the last 16 years warming has stopped" - yet the hottest year ever recorded was 2010. And 12 of the hottest years every recorded were in the past 16 years.

How does that work?!?!?

How could warming have stopped in the last 16 years when 12 of those last 16 years were the hottest ever recorded?

You seem to be making things up again.

And why did you write:
"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please show us evidence to support this statement of admit that you were telling a lie.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #172 - Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #173 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #174 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:
gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

THere were 3146 respondents to the survey. Not 76.

What did you hope to gain by telling such a ridiculous lie?

That same as when you lied about glaciers receding. When are going to apologise to the forum for that lie?

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #175 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:
gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

THere were 3146 respondents to the survey. Not 76.

What did you hope to gain by telling such a ridiculous lie?

That same as when you lied about glaciers receding. When are going to apologise to the forum for that lie?

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #176 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:13pm

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

What exactly is your question?!?!? Your post doesn't seem to make much sense.

Do you want to know how much of the current sea level rise is attributable to melting of continental ice shelfs?

Whatever the answer is, it would be fairly insignificant compared to current sea level rise is attributable to the thermal expansion of the liquid water in the oceans

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #177 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:15pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:
gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

THere were 3146 respondents to the survey. Not 76.

What did you hope to gain by telling such a ridiculous lie?

That same as when you lied about glaciers receding. When are going to apologise to the forum for that lie?

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Do you know why Gold Medal told such a silly lie? Could you explain?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #178 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

HEAT CONTENT IS WHAT MATTERS... NOT TEMPERATURE!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #179 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:18pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 7:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 7^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jan 1^st, 2013 at 8:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 3:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 31^st, 2012 at 12:37pm:

Interesting to note:

(1) If the ice and the water it floats in are of different composition then the water is displaced ie freshwater ice in salt water. The pictures we've been seeing is from Antarctica and Greenland (freshwater ice)

(2) Does anyone know what the IPCC say about recent rises in sea-level and how much it contributes to Antarctica and Greenland?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet mass contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003

Antarctica ==>> 0.21 ± 0.35 mm/year
Greenland ==>> 0.21 ± 0.07 mm/year

things to note:
(a) This is an estimate
(b) The rise is in millimetres
(c) The Antarctic margin of error wipes out the Antarctic contribution as well as offsets the Greenland contribution

not one leftie commented on this IPCC finding?

you don't know what 0.21mm looks like? - look in your pants and multiply that by 1,000

talking about multiplying by 1,000

if we multiply 0.21mm by 1,000 years = 210mm = 21cm in 1,000 years???

Give me time, Maqqa.

Have you thought about using a metric other than your penis size. It doesn't seem to match any standard I'm aware of.

penis size is about the only measurement lefties understand

you guys haven't discovered the Empirical Measurement let alone the Metric

Still nothing from the left about these sea level increases?

Still nothing from the left about these IPCC figures?

too smug about a few hot days around the country. NOW it is global warming because it is hot and not even close to the hottest.

Why did you tell this outright lie here:
gold_medal wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:05pm:

well let's look at the '97% of climate scientists' claim that MOTR makes.

the source of this data is a survey of just two questions - both poorly written and subjective.

it was sent out to 10,000+ 'climate scientists' a massive number of 76 responded. yep, SEVENTY SIX. so in the mother of all self-selction bias surveys, 97% say they support a poorly defined ACC.

there are Womens Day surveys with more statistical credibility than that.

this is an example of the statistical nonsense that passes for science over in the climate hysterical corner.

THere were 3146 respondents to the survey. Not 76.

What did you hope to gain by telling such a ridiculous lie?

That same as when you lied about glaciers receding. When are going to apologise to the forum for that lie?

You need to keep up. You sound like you are so far from the information at hand, you almost sound like that useful idiot I was talking about.

Do you know why Gold Medal told such a silly lie? Could you explain?

I know of the information of the 76 because I linked to it. It is not a lie. The 97% comes from 76 climate scientist who had published a paper that was accepted withn xxxx. Big number hey considering 3000+ respondents.

Pathetic. Started with 10000. Ended up with 3000 something responses and only ended with a 97% number of 76 out of 3000 something respondents.

Back to top

IP Logged