Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....
Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit.
Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?
That ain't science, that's fraud.
You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.
I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe.
Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds.
You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....
Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit.
Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?
That ain't science, that's fraud.
You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.
I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe.
Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds.
You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....
Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit.
Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?
That ain't science, that's fraud.
You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.
I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe.
Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds.
You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....
Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit.
Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?
That ain't science, that's fraud.
You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.
I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe.
Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds.
You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....
Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit.
Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?
That ain't science, that's fraud.
You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.
I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe.
Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds.
You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
As I just stated, your definition of "reputable" requires them to support the AGW abracadabra. Your logic is circular. It's also an appeal to authority. Two fallacies in a single sentence.
Tell me, if your handed a turd do you throw it out and ask for real food or do you gobble it up? Misrepresenting the positions of other scientists is the game these fools play and that is not ethical.
Ah, we have captured the essence of your personal scientific expertise on climate change. Why not? Haven't seen anything else from you in your "professional" opinion that advances the debate more than that.
You're not going to trust a science based source that uses computer models? Let me see if I can go find a pen and some graph paper.....should be some here in a drawer....be right back....
Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit.
Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?
That ain't science, that's fraud.
You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.
I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe.
Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds.
You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
You still think your so smart and that only you are the arbiter of who and what is reputable.. Arguing with an idiot is pointless..
Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit.
Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?
That ain't science, that's fraud.
You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.
I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe.
Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds.
You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
As I just stated, your definition of "reputable" requires them to support the AGW abracadabra. Your logic is circular. It's also an appeal to authority. Two fallacies in a single sentence.
It likes to run in circles with sharp objects. His logical fallacy train is going 100 mph and he doesn't care that the corner coming up says 35mph...
Go ahead, it won't change the fact that the physical evidence refutes your religion. Nor will it change the fact that your cult continually engages in fraud to force figures to fit.
Hottest year on record, 1934. BUT that doesn't fit with the doctrine of the church, so let's just change those temperatures to something that works for the faith?
That ain't science, that's fraud.
You AGW fools are no different than the Catholic Church of the 1300's.
I don't care if you have consensus that the sun orbits the earth. I don't care if you have a computer model that the earth is the center of the universe.
Yes, you will destroy anyone who questions church doctrine, using the coercion of the church to keep any study of forbidden ideas away from questioning minds.
You are the herald of the new dark ages, where knowledge is suppressed in favor of "consensus."
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
You still think your so smart and that only you are the arbiter of who and what is reputable.. Arguing with an idiot is pointless..
Notice how you didn't really say anything?
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
You still think your so smart and that only you are the arbiter of who and what is reputable.. Arguing with an idiot is pointless..
Notice how you didn't really say anything?
And neither did you. See how that works.
And now the truth:
PAUL DRIESSEN: Earth may be cooling, not warming
Where'd you get that? Link? Ever heard of polling zzzzzzzzzzz?And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.And 99% of climatologists and everyone in the world but bought off by Big Oil Pubs and you silly dupes lol...
And where did you get that little number ?
When you "read something" you'll see that the 97% (not 99%) were those surveyed under specific conditions.....
The whole idea that the climatology world is bought off on this is a fabrication.
- 99% of climatologists agree global warming is manmade ...
www.mnn.com/.../99-of-climatologists-agree-global-warming-is-manmade
99% of climatologists agree global warming is ... the scientific consensus behind globalwarming is. 99% of publishing climatologists ... Global Warming , Science ...- Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Global warming in this case was ... "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 ... or studying paleoclimatic change might ...- Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ... Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
For professional climatologists who publish peer-reviewed pagers, 72 of 75 agree with the statement. As you can judge for yourself, that is about as clear a consensus as can be reached among scientists who are incredibly independent and cautious about agreeing to something so general.
Wow! 72/75, that's almost every scientist in the world!!!
Was Franco stupid before his Mom dropped him on his head?
Maybe we should ask 75 people?
I followed your top link. Then I searched for the source of the number from your top link.
Did you think the 97% number the warmers have been touting was based on a large sample? LOL!
Weren't you challenged with finding a credible source that denies climate change? You know, a reputable organization that doesn't cater to wingnuts, conspiracy theorists or the oil industry? You asked me to name organizations that not funded by the government that see climate change as real and that was an easy task. Now it's your turn.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
As I just stated, your definition of "reputable" requires them to support the AGW abracadabra. Your logic is circular. It's also an appeal to authority. Two fallacies in a single sentence.
It likes to run in circles with sharp objects. His logical fallacy train is going 100 mph and he doesn't care that the corner coming up says 35mph...
You still haven't answered my question. Actually, you've ran as far as you could from it.
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Only orgs that support the AGW hocus pocus are reputable,
According to your definition of "reputable,"
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
You still think your so smart and that only you are the arbiter of who and what is reputable.. Arguing with an idiot is pointless..
Notice how you didn't really say anything?
And neither did you. See how that works.
Not really. When I claim I haven't found a reputable source to dispute climate change and someone replies with "You still think (sic) your so smart...blah...blah...blah" then yeah, they didn't say much.
But, you're a mod, you know this, right?
I haven't found a reputable one that doesn't believe in the science of climate change. And of all people I certainly don't expect you to be capable of proving differently.
You still think your so smart and that only you are the arbiter of who and what is reputable.. Arguing with an idiot is pointless..
Notice how you didn't really say anything?
And neither did you. See how that works.
Not really. When I claim I haven't found a reputable source to dispute climate change and someone replies with "You still think (sic) your so smart...blah...blah...blah" then yeah, they didn't say much.
But, you're a mod, you know this, right?
You Deny empirical evidence... Which I supplied, becasue you dont think its credible (imagine that, he thinks NOAA and NASA are not credible)... You fail to reason at all..
And now the truth:
PAUL DRIESSEN: Earth may be cooling, not warming
That's a single kook in Russia who has been predicting cooling for many years. Instead, it just keeps warming more strongly. Even if the sun went as cool as the Maunder minimum, that would only delay the warming a few years. The effects of our greenhouse gases vastly overwhelm any conceivable solar change.
I think this thread has run its course, as it's ending just like every other thread in the Environment folder. That is, the same tiny handful of bitter fringe cultists begins weeping openly about how the entire world is engaged in a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot against them. And in return, the world just ignores them. After all, nobody pays any attention to flat earthers, so why pay attention to deniers?
I can't say I'm sorry for deniers, as they've actively chosen to follow their deviant lifestyle. For their sake, I hope the weird gratification they get from interacting with their fellow cultists makes up for the constant humiliation they receive from the rest of the world.
I love the Global Warming theory, it's never wrong: It cools - it's because of Global Warming, record snow - it's because of Global Warming, ice pack thickening - it's because of Global Warming, sun going through a cooling period of low activity which might lead to a mini ice age soon - its because of Global Warming. .
Duhhh, it's cooling BECAUSE Global Climate Warming Change, DENIER!!!!!
You still think your so smart and that only you are the arbiter of who and what is reputable.. Arguing with an idiot is pointless..
Notice how you didn't really say anything?
And neither did you. See how that works.
Not really. When I claim I haven't found a reputable source to dispute climate change and someone replies with "You still think (sic) your so smart...blah...blah...blah" then yeah, they didn't say much.
But, you're a mod, you know this, right?
You Deny empirical evidence... Which I supplied, becasue you dont think its credible (imagine that, he thinks NOAA and NASA are not credible)... You fail to reason at all..
Which once again goes back to who is the source of your information? What is it tied to? wingnuts, retards or the oil industry?
And yeah, I do think NOAA and NASA are more qualified than you or your pretend experts.
Problem is you're too biased and not willing to objectively look at the facts that contradict the so called "Global Warming" theory. The left is in charge of the media and as such are promoting this false narrative just like they are doing with everything else.And now the truth:
PAUL DRIESSEN: Earth may be cooling, not warming
That's a single kook in Russia who has been predicting cooling for many years. Instead, it just keeps warming more strongly. Even if the sun went as cool as the Maunder minimum, that would only delay the warming a few years. The effects of our greenhouse gases vastly overwhelm any conceivable solar change.
I think this thread has run its course, as it's ending just like every other thread in the Environment folder. That is, the same tiny handful of bitter fringe cultists begins weeping openly about how the entire world is engaged in a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot against them. And in return, the world just ignores them. After all, nobody pays any attention to flat earthers, so why pay attention to deniers?
I can't say I'm sorry for deniers, as they've actively chosen to follow their deviant lifestyle. For their sake, I hope the weird gratification they get from interacting with their fellow cultists makes up for the constant humiliation they receive from the rest of the world.
