An overwhelming body of data and still we have climate deniers

[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.

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

See Berkley Earth Temp results

Yup, cherry picking. Called it!

 

[PredFan]

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

lol, you do nothing to dispute claims but you say you do and then you pretend your too smart and can't get a challenger. What a fucking moron..

Listen, here's the only thing I need to say and it destroys your argument: if it's such a scientific certainty, why the fraud?

 

[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.

I wasn't aware other species drill for oil.

Any chance you can send us a photo of say, chipmunks, all standing around an oil rig waiting for that next big strike ?????

A logical fallacy from a lefty. Color me shocked.

I said all species impact the environment. I did not say each did so in the same manner.

But you knew that, which makes you a disingenuous straw man.

And we should let the likes of you control the energy markets? Yea, pass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.

He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.

If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.

the facts are that if you add millions of pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every day for decades, your going to eventually alter the atmospheric chemistry

He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.

So when Michael Mann claimed he won......he was lying.

If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.

The flaws go much further than Michael Mann's lies.

 

[Boston1]

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?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.

I'm not seeing where he claimed he did. His page states
"He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize."
So it looks like your off on a tangent splitting hairs, IE avoiding the facts of climate shift.

 

[Boston1]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

I fear you LIE about this, as much as you do about man made climate change! If they weren't making a DECENT living off of it, do you really think they would be doing it?

Clearly you don't understand that some people chose a field of work which is their passion rather than a cash cow.

Again you are merely avoiding the topic on hand. Do you have a viable scientific position against the theory of climate change ? Because it looks like you are focussed on the low wages involved instead of the science discovered

 

[Boston1]

Personal attacks are a sure s

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.

Ohh lookey here olfraud can't comprehend what he's spewing. Color me unsurprised.

Really, a climate denier in charge of the climate thread. Thats entertaining

What's a "climate denier"? Anybody with a brain KNOWS that climate is always changing. What's hilarious is people thinking that it doesn't.

Whats hilarious is that some folks are incapable of realizing that something like "the rate of change" is critical to the ecosystem

 

[Boston1]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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.

Yikes

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?

LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.

Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)

Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance

 

[westwall]

Personal attacks are a sure s

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.

Ohh lookey here olfraud can't comprehend what he's spewing. Color me unsurprised.

Really, a climate denier in charge of the climate thread. Thats entertaining

What's a "climate denier"? Anybody with a brain KNOWS that climate is always changing. What's hilarious is people thinking that it doesn't.

Whats hilarious is that some folks are incapable of realizing that something like "the rate of change" is critical to the ecosystem

Care to support that with some real evidence. Not some made up computer model crap. Here's the deal junior, there have been MANY times when global temperatures have climbed very rapidly, the most recent being the MWP (which your hero Mann tried to erase from the history books....wonder why?) and not a single terribly thing that your hero's bleat about has ever occurred. Not one.

How do you rationalize that away?

 

[westwall]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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.

Yikes

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?

LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.

Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)

Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance

Show us a prediction that came true. I can show you page after page after page of predictions that all failed. It has gotten so bad that they no longer dare make a prediction as they will be shown wrong very quickly. How many winters have we had where there is no snow as Dr. Viner famously predicted back in 1991? Hmm? Or how about that ice free Arctic. How many years ago was it supposed to be open water? Hmmm?

 

[Boston1]

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?

2007 co author IPCC. No he was not named but what it the IPCC but its authors ? Actually the two that were named along with the IPCC weren't even authors. So yeah, all 50 or so might easily lay claim to being apart of the 2007 peace prize

Wow. You almost sound like good old mikey. Here's the reality.... This is just another example of the unethical behavior exhibited by the climatologists at the heart of the CLIMATEGATE scandal. Over, and over, and over again it has been shown that they used shoddy methodology, made catastrophic errors in calculations, and falsified data. And people like you ignore that completely. Why? Why do you ignore obvious ethical violations?

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown


"Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Thanks to a tip off from respected climate researcher, Dr. Klaus Kaiser, myself and Tom Richard (who scooped the original Nobel story) obtained “before and after” copy images from PSU websites as records of this damning retraction. (see below)."

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

Yikes

You do have a penchant for ideological diatribe don't you. Any science concerning climate shift you are even aware of ?????

The site you linked to is an op ed piece from an ultra right wing climate denier who's credentials are hardly comparable to our worlds top scientists who virtually ALL agree that climate change is a serious threat

 

[westwall]

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?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.

I'm not seeing where he claimed he did. His page states
"He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize."
So it looks like your off on a tangent splitting hairs, IE avoiding the facts of climate shift.

Just as an FYI, this level of willful ignorance is more accurately described as "INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY" and is a hallmark of the AGW crowd. Just sayin. The reason why you can't "find it" is because he was FORCED to retract it. Duh.... I posted this in direct response to your earlier question. Clearly you chose to ignore that fact. Funny, you clowns ALL ignore facts. Why is that?


Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.

I'm not seeing where he claimed he did. His page states
"He contributed, with other IPCC authors, to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize."
So it looks like your off on a tangent splitting hairs, IE avoiding the facts of climate shift.

Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with Vice President Al Gore and his colleagues of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

Michael E. Mann - Timeline | Facebook

Of those 2,000 thank-you-note recipients, only one (as far as we know) has claimed to be a Nobel laureate in an actual Superior Court legal complaint - no fewer than three times (paragraphs 2, 5 and 17).

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/michael-mann-complaint.pdf

The fraudulent Nobel Laureate

 

[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.

Do they lose funding if they lie about the Nobel Prize?

 

[westwall]

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?

2007 co author IPCC. No he was not named but what it the IPCC but its authors ? Actually the two that were named along with the IPCC weren't even authors. So yeah, all 50 or so might easily lay claim to being apart of the 2007 peace prize

Wow. You almost sound like good old mikey. Here's the reality.... This is just another example of the unethical behavior exhibited by the climatologists at the heart of the CLIMATEGATE scandal. Over, and over, and over again it has been shown that they used shoddy methodology, made catastrophic errors in calculations, and falsified data. And people like you ignore that completely. Why? Why do you ignore obvious ethical violations?

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown


"Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Thanks to a tip off from respected climate researcher, Dr. Klaus Kaiser, myself and Tom Richard (who scooped the original Nobel story) obtained “before and after” copy images from PSU websites as records of this damning retraction. (see below)."

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

Yikes

You do have a penchant for ideological diatribe don't you. Any science concerning climate shift you are even aware of ?????

The site you linked to is an op ed piece from an ultra right wing climate denier who's credentials are hardly comparable to our worlds top scientists who virtually ALL agree that climate change is a serious threat

Oh? Did the author I quoted falsely claim to be a Nobel recipient? No? I suggest it is YOU who are the political ideologue clown boy. Dude, you're not very good at this are you! Here's the deal silly boy, when you are relying for your arguments on ethically challenged people, who have been FORCED to retract claims that they have made, you have lost your mind.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Yikes

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Wrong Again...all modeling fails with 100% certainty. Model outputs you tout as empirical evidence are not. same old crap just a different day from alarmists..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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.

Yikes

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?

LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.

Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)

Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance

I am a meteorologist with a degree in atmospheric physics, please provide these so called models for me, Ive never seen them before and I work in this field.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

Clearly you are not reading along. Man was a contributing author ( along with about 50 others ) to the nobel prize wining 2007 IPCC report. The IPCC received the award, however the IPCC report was a conglomeration of numerous efforts. Ergo its reasonable to offer an equal share of the credit to each of the contributing authors, even if they aren't all specifically names ( actually only two were actually identified and neither of them actually contributed any science to the IPCC )

So Michael Mann did not win a Nobel Prize.

He and a group of about 50 other authors, in a work published by the IPCC did receive a Nobel in 2007. While it would be misleading to claim any one person received the 2007 award it is reasonable to note that each of the contributing authors were directly involved in winning the award.

If your entire argument against the theory is based off some deniers desperately clinging to minutia like this, then your desperate to find flaw.

the facts are that if you add millions of pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere every day for decades, your going to eventually alter the atmospheric chemistry

Lets put some real facts to your factually challenged position.

The earth has varied in CO2 levels over its life time and has been as high as 7,000ppm and as low as 150ppm. We know from the Paleo record that low CO2 levels (below 280ppm) cause foliage to die and plants to become starved. During times of high CO2 concentrations the plants become huge and heavy.

The fact is, the earths average CO2 level for most of its existence has been around 1,500ppm and shows a delayed response (by 200-800 years) following the earths temperature changes. CO2 has never driven temperature change due to the water cycle and its direct effect of rendering CO2 mute.

During the life of the planet, the temperature range is only about 12 deg C and it ranges within that boundary despite the level of CO2 being high or low. Again showing us that CO2 can not cause a runaway green house effect.

Its really amazing how uniformed people make outlandish claims about climate and mans impact without perspective.Tell me, where is the atmospheric hot spot, that must be present if the AGW hypothesis was correct, is? (I'll give you a hint... conduction and convection within the water cycle wont allow it to appear)

 

[Boston1]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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.

Yikes

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?

LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.

Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)

Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance

Show us a prediction that came true. I can show you page after page after page of predictions that all failed. It has gotten so bad that they no longer dare make a prediction as they will be shown wrong very quickly. How many winters have we had where there is no snow as Dr. Viner famously predicted back in 1991? Hmm? Or how about that ice free Arctic. How many years ago was it supposed to be open water? Hmmm?

No problem

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...DzsH5wBAnz5wBatNBYsAhw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Once again your phony claim has absolutely zero merit in reality.

And once again I'm betting you will ignore the actual science in favor of your preferred idiological based belief .

 

[Boston1]

Most of the climate scientists I know are living in basic poverty. The lie that scientists are making a killing off climate science is just ridiculous.

If you want to spread lies like this why don't you tell us what the average salary of a climate scientist is and lets just see how accurate your claim really is

See

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiz_p6XgvXOAhVN32MKHZ0JDtIQFggkMAI&url=http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/&usg=AFQjCNFCzrvxOOdAicmgOOXThWn-6LnKpA&sig2=Qiy2ulr6xXfZfDqnIAeWww&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

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.

Yikes

Dead wrong. There is endless empirical data that directly supports the theory.

Also models have been extremely accurate in predicting changes.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiZ0qD9_fTOAhVKVWMKHetCB68QFggjMAE&url=https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm&usg=AFQjCNEt1SAbb2X1J537IypO3Dg2vEHVmw&sig2=NVq4qW5ptHZDXtKMjXRNOw&bvm=bv.131783435,d.cGc

Models have catastrophically failed. Unless you consider a 300% error "accurate". Show us some empirical studies please. No computer models JUST empirical data. Two should cover it. I asked another member here to produce two for us over a month ago and so far no joy. If it's so "easy" I would have expected to see one by now. Is it possible you have no idea what empirical means?

LOL 300% your funny. Models have been highly accurate erring on the low side if anything, mostly because the IPCC didn't want to appear alarmist.

Obviously your not reading along or you'd have seen the Berkley Earth study I presented a link to. Pure empirical data ;--) no model involved there ;--) Just a simple temp graph you refuse to acknowledge ;--)

Again your position is based off turning a blind eye to the facts, IE cognitive dissonance

I am a meteorologist with a degree in atmospheric physics, please provide these so called models for me, Ive never seen them before and I work in this field.

As a meteorologist you read the weather and try and look pretty on TV. Sorry but climate and weather are two different things.

As for your curiosity concerning climate see previous link to IPCC predictions vs actual. ;--)