Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 8:50am:

I really didn't think you would misunderstand me but lo and behold you've gone literal. Alright I'll apologize for saying a "vacuum" I was merely making a point but seems to have been misunderstood. What I meant by vacuum was without the presence of all of those factors that I listed above (negative feedbacks, carbon sinks, climate sensitivity, other non-independent climate drivers etc etc)

C02 causes warming in a controlled environment which is far from what we have.

Sorry bout the double posts. Might be my tablet that's the problem.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

The vast majority is proved. Its your baseless denials in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence that is not proved.  The 97% stand unscathed by the denialist BS to discredit them.  Again, its your baseless and persistant assertions that are not proved. You last answer re co2 demonstrates how you just pull it out of your ar$e and don't care what you say as long as there is one or 2 suckers out there who might fall for your BS.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:


I urge you to pay attention to what I write in this post and use your own brain to work it out.

I have posted a graph below of the TRUE results as taken from their website. Not only was it not a survey of authors it was a survey of papers of the 12000+ many authors had 7 or so papers rated (not 7 different scientists but the single scientist 7 papers). No just this but many have written back angry that their papers were miss-classified. (the below link please read it, this is the quotes from the scientists themselves that are p*ss*ed off)


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifie...

One of the lead authors of the IPCC has dismissed the 97% survey and was attacked by Cook as a denier, this is posted above as the twitter post by the author.

When doing the survey they explicitly said they would count no opinion papers as "no votes", however they have manipulated the data. They took a small proportion of ones that gave an opinion and expanded that to include the entire f*ck*ng scientific community! It's like me going to Woodridge (welfare capital of Queensland) and doing a survey on "should centrelink payments be raised" then when I get the results 97% in woodridge say Yes so I expand that to include all of Australia!

Only 8% of the 12000+ papers Explicitly endorsed AGW. I'm not lying I took the numbers from their website these are their numbers. Not only this but so many "explicit" endorsements aren't even supporting AGW!

The following was classified by AGW supporter reviewers as "Explicitly endorsing AGW without quantifying" Or Category 2:

"The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering."
Source: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985

The real results for the survey:
Category      Abstracts
1. Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%      
2. Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise      
3. Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it      
4. No Position      8269
5. Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW      
6. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify      
7. Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%      

Results:
1. 65
2. 934
3. 2934
4. 8269
5. 53
6. 15
7. 10

Of the above results look on the web and the links posted at how many were misrepresented. How many more have been that haven't written back? How can you seriously defend this paper in light of all this manipulation and lies!? I am not a shill, I am outraged at the amount of BS being peddled by these people.

I'm guessing you guys are going to stick your finger in your ears and spit some conspiracy theory lies out among something like "good try priest" or some other ad hominem.


Also what about my c02 comment was pulled out of my arse? Are you saying that c02 creates warming in conjunction with all the factors I've listed that reduce it ?

I know you will misquote the above post so I will repeat it.

Vacuum was analogy for a situation without external factors.
C02 increases cause increased temperature in a controlled environment without other factors. I have listed this factors in my prior posts and won't do so again.


Vacuum = Without external factors.
c02 increase = temperature increase, without external factors.
Our earth has factors outside of just green house gasses.

Got it yet?

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:


the number of lies and distortions you have posted on this topic may well be a record

you should be ashamed of your self deluded deceptions and embarrassing level of public incompetence

be gone, freak clown maggot of spin YOUR TIME IS UP

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 1:50pm:


Youre digging a bigger ditch for yourself to ferment in vuk11.

Are you now saying that CO2 does NOT act as a greenhouse gas in the earths atmosphere because the earths atmosphere is an UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT??