Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Alarmists have long claimed the Crater lake would melt away by now

 

Some fiction. hottest year ever.. on the right, well below previous high temp periods

please log in to view this image

Check this out, there is no distinction between man made and natural warming rates, except man made is a slightly less rate of warming than natural.. seems legit

please log in to view this image

no wonder the met lost the bbc contract

 

Scabby ****ing Gyppo horses ate my carrots, apples and parsnips for nothing! I suppose they kept the score down from a deserved West Ham 5-0 win though.

 

please log in to view this image

 

So after all the hullabaloo about COPI21 in Paris, it's all voluntary. #pointless.

Moreover Secretary of State John Kerry made an astounding confession at the COP-21 climate conference in Paris "Emissions cuts by the U.S. and other industrialized nations will make no difference to global climate"

That needs some explaining by the man made climate change people on here. Expect no answer.

 

And apparently Obama's negotiating team argued a non binding document.
A non binding document is worth less than the paper its printed on

 

Temp measurement (raw data) vs NOAA final "remodeled\adjusted\tampered with" temp record

please log in to view this image

Colder becomes warmer #fraud

 

Pearls before swine Sisu

 

I'd never heard that term before, had to look it up. Like it

Don't worry mate, the Paris conference was not binding, so as soon as this fraud is blown wide open, and the cracks in their story are now gaping holes, I hope the "scientists" are lynched.

One of the climategate emails reads "I hope this is not just natural variability, if it is they will kill us" "they" meaning you and I and Joe Public. You don't read of that kind of ^^ uncertainty do you? People are still actually using that 97% claim, the Guardian even quietly removed it from their site, cos it was destroyed as a fraud, 0.5 % consensus was what was found when the paper was examined. Now you are not allowed to publish it's data or discuss it because the frauthor and his university have made the paper a commercial product.. Lying ****s.

20 years ago everyone almost believed this nonsense, but thanks to the diligence of the few, almost half of people don't believe it any more, and most people couldn't care if it was real, that tends to happen when you have a life to live instead of being paranoid about a "possible" 2 degree warming over a 100 year period (they originally claimed it would be 5 or even 7 degrees, but science won out there)

I can tell you what will happen, this theory will die in cold weather, freezing with half it's fingers and toes missing When it does, they will say "well we're doing it anyway because it is the right thing to do" I guarantee you that will be the outcome, the complete fraud will be "forgotten" as per usual political amnesia.

But all those scientists who assisted in this fraud, should be lynched and the IPCC politicians should be arrested for fraud of stealing 40 billion

 

@Diego

This is one "conspiracy theory" that happens to be true With the help of other diligent people I have destroyed this fraud on this thread, utterly smashed. Not cos I am awesome, but because I engaged my brain and read everything I could read from both sides of the argument.

Bottom line, we have no idea what is happening with the climate and our best guess is the sun, based on observations over 400 years and paleo-climate records for thousands and millions of years.

Currently to model climate it would take our best computers 40 years to model one year, and that is just modelling clouds, let alone natural CO2 sinks and water vapour.

It is impossible, by today's standards to predict the climate 100 years from now with any certainty at all, 0 confidence.
Only from looking at the past, not models can you make a call, and we are, the earth was warmer, it will get warmer again. #magic

 

arctic temp record 1958 to 2016
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Dunno where all that fear comes from, now shown here.

Now the new claim is a storm is going to defrost the arctic, even though it's WELL below zero and you need to get to +28f to start a melt on ice
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/...-storm-melt-north-pole-climate-change/422166/

 

Real pollution, whale died because there was so much garbage in it's stomach it could not eat and digest food.

please log in to view this image

please log in to view this image

 

A pedant writes: that's actually a dolphin.

 

"whale" was abbreviated "Killer Whale", it's common name, not it's species. I decided against using king of the Dolphins

 

There are plastics that break down into tiny particles, like from Roller skate plastic, that hard plastic.

Fish eat the particles, and you eat the fish, if you eat enough fish you might be eating those rollers skates you bought in the 80s that you threw out when roller skating became gay

 

i know Sis, I'm just being tedious. Seen them in the wild in NZ and off John O'Groats. beautiful animals. Kings of the oceans, never mind of other dolphins.

 

I like tedious, and technicality so it's all good mon frere

Sea World disgust me, they are fighting a legal battle to be allowed to breed them in captivity. When born to the tank and humans they perform tricks better I'd imagine.
They are intelligent and self aware. How on earth this is legal today is beyond me.

But CO2..

 

The KWs grab sharks by the tail and drag them backwards in the water to drown them, ****ing awesome

If that's not aware I dunno what is

 

Good grief, that reads like an acceptance speech at the Crank of the Year awards

You've not destroyed or smashed anything. You've merely regurgitated the blogs of those who challenge the existence of climate change. Well done mate.

As for taking in both sides of the argument, are you being serious? You dismissed any source posted that goes against the views that concur with the conclusion you've decided is 'right' of as being either fraudulent, environazis or climatards.

There's been absolutely no balance in what you've put forward in this debate. in fact you've flip flopped around. One minute there's no termperature rise at all as the data is all bent. The next the temperature rise has happened but isn't due to mans CO2 production, the next there's supposedly saturation of CO2, so it no longer matter. You're seemingly as confused as some of the 'science' that you've put forward to back your stance.

For every cut and paste from the net you make that backs your stance there's hundreds that conclude the converse. Here's one that challenges the Booker article on data 'fraud' for example

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/noise-on-the-telegraph/

The bottom line is that you don't believe it, fine, we get it, but you've not 'won' this debate pal. You've merely provided a counter to the consensus belief, there's a distinct difference.

If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should use the time and energy that you've spent trying to 'win the Internet' on here, and take up campaigning

 

Any idiot who can read can go find out themselves they don't need me and I always say dont believe me go confirm it yourselves.

Data fraud doesn't interest you, evidence of scientists conspiring to hide data and delete data is of no interest. Scientific papers to the contrary are of no interest. Clearly debunking of the melting arctic due to man made climate change doesn't interest you.

What does interest you is this bitterness of yours, you actually called me a troll recently

Also what interests you is disagreeing with anything I say, then going and learning three minutes stuff and coming back with tragic arguments. Then claim you won, as if it is a game.

Any more global warming arguments? So I can take them apart like HIAG's lego lawyer set? Or is it "man made climate change" now?