An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[Boston1]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

climate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

Who could ever deny climate?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

 

[Boston1]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

 

[OldLady]

Sometimes this whole conversation reminds me of the sinking of Valhalla in Erik the Viking.
As they slowly sink into the sea smiling and waving and without a clue

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

I've never met anyone who has denied there is a climate.

 

[leftwinger]

I'm such a "denier" I won't enter GW threads. More hogwarsh from liberal wana-be thieves.

 

[PredFan]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

All they have in the way of "data" are computer models based on estimates. As the old saying goes, garbage in/garbage out.

Why do we still deny? Well I can only speak for myself. My two best subjects in grade school, college and post-grad were science and history. I know the history of science too. Science has been more wrong than right historically. Scientists used to say that they learned a lot even when they we're wrong. There have been hoaxes committed by scientists, there have been cases of fraud, and too many times governments, kings, religious leaders, and rulers of all sorts have had influence over science.

Today, a powerful and corrupt political party has control. Scientists are human, they want the things we all want and many have college loan debt to pay. They go where the money is and the money is in climate change. They are not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Scientists have been for sale for many many decades, probably more so now.

There has been fraud, scandal, and intimidation connected with climate change "science". These things have resulted in a great deal of non-scientific predictions that have of course fallen flat.

If you know science and history as I do, you know that climate change as it is defined today, has no basis in any real science. It's a political football, nothing more.

 

[Boston1]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

 

[Boston1]

I'm such a "denier" I won't enter GW threads. More hogwarsh from liberal wana-be thieves.

So its all some kinda liberal conspiracy ? ;--)

And how is it that the data supporting this liberal conspiracy dates back long before there ever were liberals ?

 

[Boston1]

Is it cognitive dissonance or just good old fashioned ignorance that leads to the continued denial ?

The science is extremely clear on this one. Hell there's a stronger consensus concerning climate shift or the theory of rapid global climate shift than there is a consensus on gravity so how is it there exist this ideological death grip on denial ?

I've tackled the issue from a number of different angles usually starting with a review of the science, but the science is overwhelmingly in full support of the theory, at which point the deniers simply reject science, gravity ;--) a round planet ;--) little things like that and then stamp their feet insisting its all some kinda comunist hoax designed to take their rights away LOL.

So the idea with this particular thread is to draw out any deniers we might have left in the world and hear them out.

Name your poison ? inquiring minds want to know ;--)

Oh and PS, lets keep it clean and polite

All they have in the way of "data" are computer models based on estimates. As the old saying goes, garbage in/garbage out.

Why do we still deny? Well I can only speak for myself. My two best subjects in grade school, college and post-grad were science and history. I know the history of science too. Science has been more wrong than right historically. Scientists used to say that they learned a lot even when they we're wrong. There have been hoaxes committed by scientists, there have been cases of fraud, and too many times governments, kings, religious leaders, and rulers of all sorts have had influence over science.

Today, a powerful and corrupt political party has control. Scientists are human, they want the things we all want and many have college loan debt to pay. They go where the money is and the money is in climate change. They are not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Scientists have been for sale for many many decades, probably more so now.

There has been fraud, scandal, and intimidation connected with climate change "science". These things have resulted in a great deal of non-scientific predictions that have of course fallen flat.

If you know science and history as I do, you know that climate change as it is defined today, has no basis in any real science. It's a political football, nothing more.

BZZZZZZZZZ

WRONG

they have tons and tons of data which they compare one to another to ensure accuracy. Simple laboratory tests confirm the finding well over a hundred years ago by Arrhenious of CO2 being a green house gas. All the bitter arguments to the contrary, most of the data used in the formation of climate theory is rock solid. We've come a long way since alchemy was the name of the game

So of course we know what happens when you release millions of tons of it into the atmosphere. It gets warmer ;--) its really quite simple

Your complaint about models entirely misinformed, they are quite accurate concerning climate. I think you might be confused by the terms weather and climate. Weather is subject to innumerable edge effects, climate on the other hand is relatively straight forward.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

NOAA Caught Fudging "Global Warming" Data AGAIN

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

 

[Boston1]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Wrong on all counts. Calibrating the tape measure is not the fudging data, its building a better tape measure. You can argue fudged data till you are blue in the face but what your really saying is you refuse to acknowledge that any measuring device requires calibration. The more complex the devise, the more detailed the calibration and the greater the chance the initial calibration will require adjustment ;--)

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Wrong on all counts. Calibrating the tape measure is not the fudging data, its building a better tape measure. You can argue fudged data till you are blue in the face but what your really saying is you refuse to acknowledge that any measuring device requires calibration. The more complex the devise, the more detailed the calibration and the greater the chance the initial calibration will require adjustment ;--)

LOL You're a know nothing on an obscure message board and also a leftist twatwaffle...I'm not apt to take you serious

 

[Boston1]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Too many times the "overwhelming data" has been found to be fudged. They wouldn't need to do that if GLOBULL warming was indeed the real deal

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Nobels are worthless given Obungles won one

 

[Boston1]

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

.

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

German Professor: NASA Has Fiddled Climate Data On 'Unbelievable' Scale

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Wrong on all counts. Calibrating the tape measure is not the fudging data, its building a better tape measure. You can argue fudged data till you are blue in the face but what your really saying is you refuse to acknowledge that any measuring device requires calibration. The more complex the devise, the more detailed the calibration and the greater the chance the initial calibration will require adjustment ;--)

LOL You're a know nothing on an obscure message board and also a leftist twatwaffle...I'm not apt to take you serious

Interesting, so your technique is to declare the other guy a "know nothing" and bail out of the conversation. Thats a great scientific argument, lets go with that.

What would happen if you attempted to publish a refutation on a paper and that was the body of your work ?

Do you think the review board would even remotely consider that a valid position ? I mean if you are all that familiar with getting work published, surely you'd present a better argument. ;--)

Maybe you can explain to us how the increase in CO2 won''t lead to warming.

 

[Boston1]

Lot

How do they make a thermometer ?

They calibrate it against a standard ;--)

Thats not fudging, thats calibrating, same goes for tape measures ;--)

What thermometer did they use in...oh say 320 AD? LOL They've been caught fudging data and numbers, save your BS loon

Um, no, no ones been caught fudging data, actually they have a process called peer review to ensure that the data is accurate.

What your suggesting is basically the worlds biggest conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years LOL. Its simply impossible.

Why would you think its all just fudged data ? Most scientists are still eating cold pizza and drinking warm bear, trying to figure this stuff out. If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Oh and its not so hard to figure out the temp hundreds and even thousands of years ago. Multiple techniques are used each having been calibrated just like that tape measure or any newer thermometer and compared against existing data. Its really not that tricky of a process.

If they misreported anything, they'd lose what little funding they do get.

Is that what happened to Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann?

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything, he simple didn't include his calculations in his original, and took his time releasing them, which as I recall he eventually did.

Mann, actually has done a great job and been a real mover in the field of climate science. He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

Nobels are worthless given Obungles won one[/QUOT

Lots of people I don't like or admire won Nobels for one thing or another. But in the hard sciences its quite an accomplishment