An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[SassyIrishLass]

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 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.

I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you

 

[Boston1]

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 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.

I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you

So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?

Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?

Have you ever actually studied climate science ?

Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?

As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE"

Really ??????

And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ?

This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone.

Brilliant, simply brilliant

 

[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?

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.

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything,

Seriously?

He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

What was the reason? When did he win?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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 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.

I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you

So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?

Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?

Have you ever actually studied climate science ?

Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?

As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE"

Really ??????

And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ?

This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone.

Brilliant, simply brilliant

You've only offered your opinion and let's face facts, your track record is horrendous. Have a nice day

 

[Boston1]

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 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.

I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you

So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?

Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?

Have you ever actually studied climate science ?

Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?

As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE"

Really ??????

And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ?

This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone.

Brilliant, simply brilliant

You've only offered your opinion and let's face facts, your track record is horrendous. Have a nice day

LOL you know nothing of my track record but are instead descending into personal insults as just another avoidance.

The fact is if you add greenhouse gassed to the atmosphere you inevitably end up with warming. Considering the residency time of that material and you end up with an overall change in the climate system.

Its really quite simple.

So what is this about my track record again ???? ;--)

fact is you have no viable argument against the theory of rapid global climate change

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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 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.

I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you

So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?

Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?

Have you ever actually studied climate science ?

Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?

As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE"

Really ??????

And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ?

This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone.

Brilliant, simply brilliant

You've only offered your opinion and let's face facts, your track record is horrendous. Have a nice day

LOL you know nothing of my track record but are instead descending into personal insults as just another avoidance.

The fact is if you add greenhouse gassed to the atmosphere you inevitably end up with warming. Considering the residency time of that material and you end up with an overall change in the climate system.

Its really quite simple.

So what is this about my track record again ???? ;--)

fact is you have no viable argument against the theory of rapid global climate change

I'm done with you, respond to me again and I'll ignore you. You're not worth the time nor effort

 

[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.

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.

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything,

Seriously?

He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

What was the reason? When did he win?

As I recall he was a contributing author 2007 IPCC. Give me a moment to look it up as its been a long time since I payed much attention to that end of this particular issue

 

[Boston1]

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 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.

I provided links....you provided your own bias opinion. You may go now I am bored with you

So links to work that isn't peer reviewed or even remotely anything other than ideology based journalism with little or no merit is what you prefer to consider rather than hard science peer reviewed and published in journals which depend on their accuracy to maintain their reputation and viability ?

Very interesting, yet you say you are familiar with history and science ?

Have you ever actually studied climate science ?

Or do you entirely depend on journalistic opinion pieces that frankly, lack in both integrity and accuracy ?

As an example your first link was written by a guy named Josh at a site called "the NO TRICK ZONE"

Really ??????

And this is the basis of your informed denial of climate change ?

This is exactly why I started the thread. So far we have denial based of a complete misrepresentation of the calibration process, and off a journalist and his conspiracy theories which he writes up at a site called the No Trick Zone.

Brilliant, simply brilliant

You've only offered your opinion and let's face facts, your track record is horrendous. Have a nice day

LOL you know nothing of my track record but are instead descending into personal insults as just another avoidance.

The fact is if you add greenhouse gassed to the atmosphere you inevitably end up with warming. Considering the residency time of that material and you end up with an overall change in the climate system.

Its really quite simple.

So what is this about my track record again ???? ;--)

fact is you have no viable argument against the theory of rapid global climate change

I'm done with you, respond to me again and I'll ignore you. You're not worth the time nor effort

In other words you have no viable scientific argument against the theory and so your going to take your ball and bat and go home ? Well thats certainly a compelling position.

But thank you for playing. As I suspected, while denial still exists, its mostly as a form of cognitive dissonance more than anything else

 

[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.

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.

BZZZZ! Wrong. No one is claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. The problem with the rest of your nonsense is that it hasn't gotten any warmer. Unless of course you continue the AGW practice of fraud and/or cherry picking the data.

You know noting apparently about CO2 sinks, nor the other natural ways the earth consumes or absorbs excess CO2.

the rest of the stuff you simply invented out of nothing.

 

[PredFan]

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

Real science doesn't need all of that fraud. Real scientists are open to criticism and corrections to what they discover.

 

[jc456]

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.

Yeah, go with that, not

 

[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.

BZZZZ! Wrong. No one is claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. The problem with the rest of your nonsense is that it hasn't gotten any warmer. Unless of course you continue the AGW practice of fraud and/or cherry picking the data.

You know noting apparently about CO2 sinks, nor the other natural ways the earth consumes or absorbs excess CO2.

the rest of the stuff you simply invented out of nothing.

LOL No warming eh, wow, even the deniers own temp study showed massive warming

See Berkley Earth Temp results

 

[Manonthestreet]

In the time it took you to type that 1 more bogus tipping point passed you by

 

[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

NOAA Caught Fudging "Global Warming" Data AGAIN

Real science doesn't need all of that fraud. Real scientists are open to criticism and corrections to what they discover.

Real science finds overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of climate change. Your singing fraud and real scientists is hardly a viable scientific rebuttal refuting the evidence to date.

Again your position appears based on basic denial and cognitive dissonance as you nor anyone else responding to my request has even remotely detailed a scientific argument outlining a science based rebuttal of the data.

Anyone else want to play :--) I haven't played the climate denial game in a while but so far. Nothing new here

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Mann ( who I've spoken to on several occasions ) didn't misreport anything,

Seriously?

He won that Nobel for a reason, he's good.

What was the reason? When did he win?

As I recall he was a contributing author 2007 IPCC. Give me a moment to look it up as its been a long time since I payed much attention to that end of this particular issue

Any luck in your search?

 

[westwall]

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

Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.

 

[eflatminor]

Nobody denies the climate changes or that humans, just like every species, impacts all elements of the environment, including the weather.

None of that gives you the right to impose your progressive nonsense on others. If you're so sure the glaciers are melting, move inland.

 

[westwall]

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.

Really? Mann WON a Nobel? Do tell... When exactly did he win it and for what?

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.

Mr. Westwall, as has been pointed out to you before, real scientists have shown your statement to be false many times in many ways. Here is one of them from one of the leading glaciologists in the world.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

Um, because it's based almost entirely on computer models that are crap. There is precious little real empirical data that supports the AGW theory.

Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD

Is that a computer model, Mr. Westwall?