Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

[BBFs Unpopular View]

http://www.mrc.org/articles/washing...ies-eco-groups-other-media-ignore-controversy
Washington Post Exposes BP ties to Eco-Groups, Other Media Ignore Controversy

But this is OK.

Exxon are accused of giving 17 million over a decade to "deniers". They've given 100m to environmental stuff in that time.
The carbon gravy train.. soaked up over 300bn in 2014.

I epitomised this disparity on covering harvard v Willie soon v Joel Schwartz and it was ignored

Only a ****** would think Oil companies are behind science that disagrees with stupid alarmism, common sense is enough reason to laugh at these clima clowns.

Only a delusional fool thinks there is real money in climate dissent.

The same ******s forget that dissenting science cant tap into the billions in government and foundation money so they must go elsewhere.

[HASHTAG]#******s[/HASHTAG]

 

[Tobes]

Now every source I use is "funded by oil"

You repeatedly use character attacks, conspiracy claims and refuse to read anything that doesn't agree with you

The first sentence. Yeah lad they seemingly are, most of the sources you've put forward have largely either been complete ****tards who have campaigned as pro smoking, asbestos is cool, cranks. Or oil company funded self serving charlatans

The thing is you're too ****ing dumb to actually check out their back grounds and what their potential drivers are, you've taken the supposed 'fact' that Moore was the founder of Greenpeace as gospel. When he was nothing of the sort.

As for the second sentence just

Your idiocy is hilarious

 

[Tobes]

http://www.mrc.org/articles/washing...ies-eco-groups-other-media-ignore-controversy
Washington Post Exposes BP ties to Eco-Groups, Other Media Ignore Controversy

But this is OK.

Exxon are accused of giving 17 million over a decade to "deniers". They've given 100m to environmental stuff in that time.
The carbon gravy train.. soaked up over 300bn in 2014.

I epitomised this disparity on covering harvard v Willie soon v Joel Schwartz and it was ignored

Only a ****** would think Oil companies are behind science that disagrees with stupid alarmism, common sense is enough reason to laugh at these clima clowns.

Environmental 'stuff' you mean like buying up marine biologists? That was ****ing ripped to shreds last week.

Are you that ****ing stupid that you think they're spending money in some form of philanthropic way? For the greater good?

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

The first sentence. Yeah lad they seemingly are, most of the sources you've put forward have largely either been complete ****tards who have campaigned as pro smoking, asbestos is cool, cranks. Or oil company funded self serving charlatans

The thing is you're too ****ing dumb to actually check out their back grounds and what their potential drivers are, you've taken the supposed 'fact' that Moore was the founder of Greenpeace as gospel. When he was nothing of the sort.

As for the second sentence just

Your idiocy is hilarious

Emoticons, laugh faces and hyperbole, lies.



Still denying Finland had a cool summer in 2015?
Will you ever actually make your glacier claim? Avoided that for weeks now
Still think Roy Spencer is a denier?

Every argument you made that I had time to dissect has been blown apart, and you go on like it never happened, and repeat exactly what I say, back at me.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Environmental 'stuff' you mean like buying up marine biologists? That was ****ing ripped to shreds last week.

Are you that ****ing stupid that you think they're spending money in some form of philanthropic way? For the greater good?

again nonsense followed by fake laughing.

You've taken a debate about science, you and astro and made it about funding and conspiracy.

it would be better that you cant come into this thread, at least Astro knows when he's beat and just disappears.

You repeatedly flip my words to use them on me, cos you cant think and use far too many laughy faces to be sane

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

I tell you what @Tobes

Lets simplify this, and leave out copy and pastes.
Explain to me now in your own words why you think the CAGW global warming hypothesis is correct and what are the uncertainties and what are the problems with the hypothesis

Then explain the technical merits and pitfalls of climate models

 

[Tobes]

Emoticons, laugh faces and hyperbole, lies.



Still denying Finland had a cool summer in 2015?
Will you ever actually make your glacier claim? Avoided that for weeks now
Still think Roy Spencer is a denier?

Every argument you made that I had time to dissect has been blown apart, and you go on like it never happened, and repeat exactly what I say, back at me.

Blown apart?

Yeah right lad, like pointing out that Whithouse's organisation are obvious fossil fuelled funded charlatans?

or pointing out that Moores claims of being the founder of Greenpeace are a proven lie?

Or pointing out that Booker is a ****ing crank with zero credibility?

Or asking you to explain how Finlands temperature was the second highest on record? Which you couldn't....

As for this complete lie that you keep posting about my supposed claim that the summer of 2015 in Finland wasn't a bit ****, stop repeating it you absolute cretin. 2015 in total was the hottest on record in Finland - fact. You claimed this was solely due to El Niño - not a fact. I asked you to explain even if I accepted that statement as being correct then what caused the warming in 2014? You can't answer it and just keep reposting lies and diversion to cover that fact.

You're completely delusional and mentally unstable imo. I honestly pity you.

 

[terrifictraore]

You've taken a debate about science, you and astro and made it about funding and conspiracy.

This made me spit beer out laughing, got to be the funniest single sentence ever on 606.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

Blown apart?

Yeah right lad, like pointing out that Whithouse's organisation are obvious fossil fuelled funded charlatans?

or pointing out that Moores claims of being the founder of Greenpeace are a proven lie?

Or pointing out that Booker is a ****ing crank with zero credibility?

Or asking you to explain how Finlands temperature was the second highest on record? Which you couldn't....

As for this complete lie that you keep posting about my supposed claim that the summer of 2015 in Finland wasn't a bit ****, stop repeating it you absolute cretin. 2015 in total was the hottest on record in Finland - fact. You claimed this was solely due to El Niño - not a fact. I asked you to explain even if I accepted that statement as being correct then what caused the warming in 2014? You can't answer it and just keep reposting lies and diversion to cover that fact.

You're completely delusional and mentally unstable imo. I honestly pity you.

So my offer of boiling it down to what you know and believe without the nonsense, is ignored. Is it because you have no idea?

Care to explain why you believe what you believe? I have more than backed myself up on why I came to my conclusion

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

This made me spit beer out laughing, got to be the funniest single sentence ever on 606.

Well if you go back far enough you'll find it was a debate until people started showing up talking about conspiracy on subjects they knew nothing about.

You still have not shown me what Piekle cherry picked, always avoiding, have you figured out climate oscillations yet?

 

[Tobes]

So my offer of boiling it down to what you know and believe without the nonsense, is ignored. Is it because you have no idea?

You don't care what I believe or not. If I took the time and trouble to explain my precise view you'd probably not even read it properly and call me a ****** as it didn't sync with your beliefs, which you've cast in stone. So what's the ****ing point?

I'm off out for a nice meal a few beers and some intelligent conversation with people who are capable of sane and rational discussion. Have a nice evening

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

You don't care what I believe or not. If I took the time and trouble to explain my precise view you'd probably not even read it properly and call me a ****** as it didn't sync with your beliefs, which you've cast in stone. So what's the ****ing point?

I'm off out for a nice meal a few beers and some intelligent conversation with people who are capable of sane and rational discussion. Have a nice evening

so you avoid rational discussion? So you won't back up the long winded campaign on here to disprove what I say.

You obviously have an opinion, I merely asked what it is based on and you wont say.

Agan when I try nail you down, you run

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

@Diego
Check out the coward running off when asked to back up why he "believes" in global warming

"
I tell you what @@Tobes

Lets simplify this, and leave out copy and pastes.
Explain to me now in your own words why you think the CAGW global warming hypothesis is correct and what are the uncertainties and what are the problems with the hypothesis

Then explain the technical merits and pitfalls of climate models"

That ^^ sent him running for the hills
Terrified of a rational debate

 

[terrifictraore]

Well if you go back far enough you'll find it was a debate until people started showing up talking about conspiracy on subjects they knew nothing about.

You still have not shown me what Piekle cherry picked, always avoiding, have you figured out climate oscillations yet?

I will ask again why did pielke choose to not use the whole time frame used for the original financial data from munich re?

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

I guess by Tobes logic "I broke Tobes"

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

I will ask again why did pielke choose to not use the whole time frame used for the original financial data from munich re?

What time frame, how do you know that? Post your source. Back to reading a pro warming nut's blog with you

Shouldn't you be asking Piekle, he's the data analyst. I can ask him on twitter if you wish. But we both know no matter what he says you wont believe it

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

NASA NOAA fraud is easy to explain, they have made bad data from cities and badly sited temp stations overrule good data from stations not affected by siting and urban island heat effect. 60% of warming comes from hot asphalt and concrete which raises night time temps more than day time temps, so the min night time temps have been going up and up.

Las Vegas is several degrees warmer than the surrounding desert at night, and you cannot separate that warming.

NASA NOAA know this as do all climate scientists

Good data is made match bad data, with which you see cool data turn to warm data.

 

[terrifictraore]

What time frame, how do you know that? Post your source. Back to reading a pro warming nut's blog with you

Shouldn't you be asking Piekle, he's the data analyst. I can ask him on twitter if you wish. But we both know no matter what he says you wont believe it

So you don't know the time frame of the original financial data? Don't tell me that's another thing that you have posted without reading because you know it all already.

As for copying from blogs, I was very open that I had compiled a list of criticisms from various sites on the web. Unlike you I do not feel the need to copy stuff and then post it as my own.

 

[BBFs Unpopular View]

So you don't know the time frame of the original financial data? Don't tell me that's another thing that you have posted without reading because you know it all already.

As for copying from blogs, I was very open that I had compiled a list of criticisms from various sites on the web. Unlike you I do not feel the need to copy stuff and then post it as my own.

I didn't read this in full because you ignored my last post. Stop posting cos I won't bother read your dodging

Now what is the source of your claim, or did you loot at Piekle's data.

Also, you claim I said something without seeing the data, yet you are too ****tarded to see that is exactly what you have done

Fools that only regurgitate what others write without thinking are 10 a penny

 

[terrifictraore]

I didn't read this fully because you ignored my last post. Stop posting cos I won't bother read your dodging

Now what is the source of your claim, or did you loot at Piekle's data.

Also, you claim I said something without seeing the data, yet you are too ****tarded to see that is exactly what you have done

So do you want me to answer or not, you are even arguing with yourself now.

I didn't even need to go into the raw data the charts told me enough, the charts published by Munich Re (on many newsites etc) went back to 1980 with the financial data yet Pielke choose to only use some of that data. Why is that?

Now as I said yesterday Pielke has probably already blogged an excuse for this, so you should be able to find it if you want.