Climate Change Deniers among our Elected Representatives

[Crick]

I personally think it may be too late. Considering how much action humans are likely to actually take, it was probably too late 20 years ago.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you explain why your opinion is at such variance with the scientists of the world?

The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...

You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.

97% of all climate scientists,

75/77. Who can argue with that?

So when 97% cardiologist tell you you need medical care, you go to the dentist for a second opinion.

If 97% of cardiologists tell me I need to spend trillions on windmills to drop my cholesterol 1 point by 2080...….

 

[Leo123]

I personally think it may be too late. Considering how much action humans are likely to actually take, it was probably too late 20 years ago.

Well what you personally think may or may not come to pass.....Meh

 

[SSDD]

Almost all Climatologists and most all scientists agree the planet is warming, man is a major cause, and actions should be taken. As you should expect there are different opinions as what needs to be done and when. If we are to wait until there is complete agreement, then we are going to have to wait until we see dramatic results of climate change.

All the climatologist and almost all scientists combined can't produce a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is anything other than natural variability. What is all that "confidence" based on"

 

[SSDD]

Gravity ==> Real
Gravity ==> Proven
AGW ==> Fairy Tale

Can you explain why your opinion is at such variance with the scientists of the world?

The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...

You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.

Same old flawed arguments....95% of the political heads of scientific academies of science promote the AGW hypothesis...they don't poll their membership...for good reason. The American Physical Society polled their members on what the society's position statement on AGW should say and they learned in very short order that the rank and file, working scientist membership had very different thoughts on the AGW hypothesis than the front office....and so it would go if all the societies polled their membership. Your claim is nothing more than an appeal to a questionable authority. Got any thing like actual observed, measured evidence that supports the claim that the climate change we have experienced is anything other than natural variability? That would be good, and would even lend some creedence to your argument...

 

[SSDD]

Exclusive photos: A giant iceberg breaks off Antarctica

They say if all of Antarctica melted the sea would rise over 200 feet. ( if all the ice on earth from both poles, most of which is in Antarctica. )

Is this the extent of your ability to defend your position? The sort of boogie man stories one might use to scare children.... Is the pseudoscientific pap that you post the very same pseudoscientific pap that convinced you that man made climate change is real? It is, isn't it? If so.....sad.

 

[SSDD]

Can you explain why your opinion is at such variance with the scientists of the world?

The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...

You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.

97% of all climate scientists,

75/77. Who can argue with that?

So when 97% cardiologist tell you you need medical care, you go to the dentist for a second opinion.

I might...Not very long ago, 97% of gastroenterologists would have told you that your stomach ulcers were caused by stress...today, they tell you a different story. Not very long ago 99% of cardiologists would have told you that cholesterol caused heart disease...today, the will tell you something different...and I could go on ad nauesum about all the things across all branches of science that a consensus once believed which is no longer true. That is the nature of science...you keep adding to your knowledge...rejecting and refining hypothesis to get you closer to the truth,

The man made climate change, on the other hand is said to have sprung forth complete and true...settled science right out of the gate...after all these years, and repeated predictive failures, no change has been made to the fundamental hypothesis...and those who "believe" still claim the science is settled...That isn't science...that is a quasi religion...or maybe a full fledged religion...in either case, it isn't science.

 

[SSDD]

No it did not say that. It said we need to act within 12 years to prevent a future crisis.

Based on what observed, measured evidence?

 

[skookerasbil]

Not for nothing.....but you look at the United States Senate and after yesterdays vote on the GND, evidently we have 100 climate deniers!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/earthe...-in-senate-after-some-real-bul-1833582102/amp


As I've been saying.....the science isnt mattering in the real world.

 

[the other mike]

Exclusive photos: A giant iceberg breaks off Antarctica

They say if all of Antarctica melted the sea would rise over 200 feet. ( if all the ice on earth from both poles, most of which is in Antarctica. )

Is this the extent of your ability to defend your position? The sort of boogie man stories one might use to scare children.... Is the pseudoscientific pap that you post the very same pseudoscientific pap that convinced you that man made climate change is real? It is, isn't it? If so.....sad.

There are a lot of deniers out there but you're the first obsessive-compulsive denier I've seen lately. But in case you haven't noticed ,I'm not arguing with you....just enjoying the frustration level you reveal every time you lose the debate. I admire your persistence though --if only you would use that energy for something positive instead of using it to perpetuate all the lies from Big Fossil Fuel.

 

[SSDD]

There are a lot of deniers out there but you're the first obsessive-compulsive denier I've seen lately. But in case you haven't noticed ,I'm not arguing with you....just enjoying the frustration level you reveal every time you lose the debate. I admire your persistence though --if only you would use that energy for something positive instead of using it to perpetuate all the lies from Big Fossil Fuel.

Of course you aren't...you have nothing to argue with. To argue against someone who says that there is no observed, measured evidence which supports the claims being made, you would need observed, measured evidence...there is none. So you post what convinced you....as sad as that is...

And exactly what lie have I told? I have said that there is no observed, measured evidence to support the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...all you would need to do to demonstrate that I lied, is to provide a single piece of such evidence...you can't though and neither can anyone else. Asking for evidence is not a lie...claiming that someone who is asking for evidence is lying, is, however a lie. You guys always lie...apparently it is your go to defense.....

When you have nothing..lie about the people who are pointing out that you have nothing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I personally think it may be too late. Considering how much action humans are likely to actually take, it was probably too late 20 years ago.

How many failed predictions does it take? Even if it is a bit "warmer", so what?!

It's over 3 DECADES now of failed predictions: ice free Arctic, snow a thing of the past, etc. we're not convinced

 

[TNHarley]

I doubt they deny the climate changes.
You agw freaks need a new schtick.
Its like how the statists took over the term liberal, the statists are now trying to take over natural earth evolution.
Pathetic.

 

[the other mike]

So you post what convinced you....as sad as that is...
.

Every post I've made on this thread contributes to the fact that you are full of shit. That's what I'm convinced of.

 

[Crick]

I doubt they deny the climate changes.
You agw freaks need a new schtick.
Its like how the statists took over the term liberal, the statists are now trying to take over natural earth evolution.
Pathetic.

Why do the deniers on this forum always have to have some sort of boogeyman? Liberals. Socialists. Statists. Warmers. Enviro-geeks/freeks/nerds

So you think current warming is "natural earth evolution". Is this the one where we evolve into extinction and get replaced by horned toads and kangaroo rats?

 

[the other mike]

Why do the deniers on this forum always have to have some sort of boogeyman? Liberals. Socialists. Statists. Warmers. Enviro-geeks/freeks/nerds

So you think current warming is "natural earth evolution". Is this the one where we evolve into extinction and get replaced by horned toads and kangaroo rats?

Talking down to others tends to be in their nature, these disinformation trolls. It's usually a sign of low self esteem. ( the little guy in a big pick up truck ) It follows their general aim of discrediting the 'conspiracy theorists'.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Gravity ==> Real
Gravity ==> Proven
AGW ==> Fairy Tale

Can you explain why your opinion is at such variance with the scientists of the world?

The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

No more needs said.

AGW is real. You can stomp your feet, lie, pout, scream, quote your bullshit denier crap all you want. I'm going with NASA.

Ypu know the US agency that studies this stuff????

More CO2 emissions => heightened CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere => Heightened greenhouse effect => warmer average global temperatures. S C I E N C E .

Let's hope that is right.

More heat.....better.

 

[Crick]

Why do you think more heat is better?

 

[TNHarley]

I doubt they deny the climate changes.
You agw freaks need a new schtick.
Its like how the statists took over the term liberal, the statists are now trying to take over natural earth evolution.
Pathetic.

Why do the deniers on this forum always have to have some sort of boogeyman? Liberals. Socialists. Statists. Warmers. Enviro-geeks/freeks/nerds

So you think current warming is "natural earth evolution". Is this the one where we evolve into extinction and get replaced by horned toads and kangaroo rats?

Statists are what they are. It is what it is. My name is TN, not merriam webster
No need to get silly, your ego that drives you to answer questions without even understanding them to begin with is silly enough.
"Well this isnt like the last couple thousand years. We must be fuckin the planet up" lol
Your models are even built on ignorance and failure.
This is 2019. Not 4500BC. Grow up.

 

[Crick]

That this isn't like the last couple thousand years is what is going to fuck US up.

They aren't my models and they are much better than the denier literature has insisted. And getting better with each iteration. I don't expect a daily weather report for the year 2100, but if they say the planet will be more than 2C warmer by then, I firmly believe we have reason to be worried and to act.