Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[IsaacNewton]

Every Global Warming denier is saying in essence, "I don't believe 97% of the PH.D's on Earth know what they are talking about, I DO."

In one of the most recent peer review studies, out of close to 11,000 peer review papers all but 2 of them stated Global Warming is real and there is no debate any more.

Deniers throw in with the 2.

Scene at the doctor's office: "Hi Joe, it looks like you have cancer. We've consulted with about 11,000 other doctors and they all agree except 2." "WELL THEN, I'm going with the 2 because the rest of you are full of shit."

This is what the denier cult rests on.

 

[Liminal]

Every Global Warming denier is saying in essence, "I don't believe 97% of the PH.D's on Earth know what they are talking about, I DO."

In one of the most recent peer review studies, out of close to 11,000 peer review papers all but 2 of them stated Global Warming is real and there is no debate any more.

Deniers throw in with the 2.

Scene at the doctor's office: "Hi Joe, it looks like you have cancer. We've consulted with about 11,000 other doctors and they all agree except 2." "WELL THEN, I'm going with the 2 because the rest of you are full of shit."

This is what the denier cult rests on.

Evidently we are supposed to believe that the 11,000 are all corrupt and dishonest, while those other two are virtuous crusaders for truth and justice.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The results of Cook et al are correct Billy Boy. You have found no flaw with their methodology. That their author interview found even higher concurrence than their abstract review throws out the common denier accusation that they grossly misclassified the studies they reviewed. They line up with a dozen other studies. I can understand how you might seek desperately to reject them, but you have no grounds. None.

Tell us something: what percentage of climate scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe accept the theory that the primary cause of the global warming of the last century is the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissionis? That is, what number do you think Cook et al would have found if the study had been done as you'd have it done (and I'd be curious to hear that described)?

Alternatively, what percentage of climate scienists publishing in peer reviewed journals do you believe hold basically to YOUR position, whatever that might actually be?

What a load of HORSE SHIT!

Cook misrepresented over 99.5% of everything he touted.. his methods were shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst..Cook is a lying scum bag... But then i remember he is a liberal socialist which means you will defend his actions to your death bed..

I guess I am a little more basic in this global warming issue. I want to see verifiable and repeatable experiments that show:
1. The earth is warming. Standardize a technique and use it over a several year period. Don't manipulate the date after you standardize;
2. If it is warming, is it CO2? Here, do what good little scientists would do and perform double blind experiments eliminating, the sun, Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, etc.
3. If it is CO2, perform another set of double blind experiments that exclude heat increasing CO2 and not CO2 increasing heat.
4. If it is CO2, is it man made CO2 and not the various other souces.

I have seen none of these. I've seen: CO2 goes up, the temperature went up, man must be killing earth. Everyone agree? Let's pass some laws that kills capitalism and destroys economies. What could go wrong?

I have posted this data many times. Empirical evidence shows that CO2 induced anything is not happening. The problem comes when those entrusted to be true to science become dependent on the government teet and in order to keep receiving their hand outs they become whores and prostitutes.

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

By empirical observation, the earth has shown their scam a lie. Now they have full on resorted to making shit up... FORWARD!

Where did you get this? Would like to learn more.

This is called basic empirical evidence science. The IPCC AR1, AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5 are all full of predictions and assumptions made by political people trying to fit natural variation into a scheme to deprive people of their freedoms.

The above time line was taken from AR3-AR4 and all we did is look empirically at the evidence to see if it is infact true. What we found was a whole host of fallacies.

Several other people have done the same observations and documentation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What a load of HORSE SHIT!

Cook misrepresented over 99.5% of everything he touted.. his methods were shoddy at best and fraudulent at worst..Cook is a lying scum bag... But then i remember he is a liberal socialist which means you will defend his actions to your death bed..

Show us Billy.
1) How did Cook et al misrepresent over 99/5% of his claims?
2) In what way were his methods shoddy?
3) In what way were his methods fraudulent?
4) What lies has Cook told?
5) If his reviews were shoddy, fraudulent lies, how do you explain the results of the author surveys? I've brought this up a few times - and I'd think it was a pretty obvious issue with claims that his reviews are bad. But I've yet to see a response. Maybe I missed it. So, give this one top priority if you would Billy - in light of your accusations, how do you explain the results of the author review?

Cook Et Al manufactured and misrepresented the papers and their authors conclusions.. You dont get much more slimy and shoddy than that..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Every Global Warming denier is saying in essence, "I don't believe 97% of the PH.D's on Earth know what they are talking about, I DO."

In one of the most recent peer review studies, out of close to 11,000 peer review papers all but 2 of them stated Global Warming is real and there is no debate any more.

Deniers throw in with the 2.

Scene at the doctor's office: "Hi Joe, it looks like you have cancer. We've consulted with about 11,000 other doctors and they all agree except 2." "WELL THEN, I'm going with the 2 because the rest of you are full of shit."

This is what the denier cult rests on.

One: What is it I deny?

Two: Why do you believe the lies by John Cook and his misrepresentation of other scientists works?

Three: How about you present real facts on both subjects?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Every Global Warming denier is saying in essence, "I don't believe 97% of the PH.D's on Earth know what they are talking about, I DO."

In one of the most recent peer review studies, out of close to 11,000 peer review papers all but 2 of them stated Global Warming is real and there is no debate any more.

Deniers throw in with the 2.

Scene at the doctor's office: "Hi Joe, it looks like you have cancer. We've consulted with about 11,000 other doctors and they all agree except 2." "WELL THEN, I'm going with the 2 because the rest of you are full of shit."

This is what the denier cult rests on.

Evidently we are supposed to believe that the 11,000 are all corrupt and dishonest, while those other two are virtuous crusaders for truth and justice.

There are over 36,000 scientists who do not agree with your measly 11,000 fools..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why do these flat earthers whom the pope agrees with , continue to debate when they declared the debate over?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why do these flat earthers whom the pope agrees with , continue to debate when they declared the debate over?

The fact that one religion has now asked another religion for it blessing should tell you they have lost the battle and are now trying very hard to remain out side of jails.. their deception is crumbling down around them and they dont understand why...

 

[IsaacNewton]

Again, ignore the deniers and talk to scientists near you.

People who are invested in denying reality will construct elaborate scaffolding to support their myths. Their goal is to confuse the issue, much like Faux News trying to claim the killings in South Carolina were not about race but about 'kristians'.

Dishonesty tries to be clever but, really, it isn't.

The science is in and is settled for 97% of the world's PH.D's. Global Warming is real and accelerating.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Again, ignore the deniers and talk to scientists near you.

People who are invested in denying reality will construct elaborate scaffolding to support their myths. Their goal is to confuse the issue, much like Faux News trying to claim the killings in South Carolina were not about race but about 'kristians'.

Dishonesty tries to be clever but, really, it isn't.

The science is in and is settled for 97% of the world's PH.D's. Global Warming is real and accelerating.

still clinging to that debunked 97% myth?

Yes and the hockey stick graph is your "crucifix"

 

[Crick]

Still clinging to that myth that the consensus is a myth? Educate yourself. Read something that doesn't have an agenda tied around the RNC or the fossil fuel industry.

The hockey stick isn't a graph. It's what the Earth's temperatures have done. As such, it ain't gonna go away.

 

[cnm]

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

 

[cnm]

Scientific proof is being beaten over the head by empirical knowledge to the point of submission.

Science does not do 'proof', it does evidence.

 

[cnm]

This is called basic empirical evidence science.

No, that is called cherry pickings cut short to avoid embarrassment and with no source. This is evidence.

Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots

 

[Wyatt earp]

Still clinging to that myth that the consensus is a myth? Educate yourself. Read something that doesn't have an agenda tied around the RNC or the fossil fuel industry.

The hockey stick isn't a graph. It's what the Earth's temperatures have done. As such, it ain't gonna go away.

it's a myth on the consensus, it was researching papers by over zealous man made climate change cult members, they never asked them personally, quit lying, the ones in question didn't even know they were part of the survey.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And the hockey stick no way resembles what the earth done, no FUCKING accurate temperture readings prior to the 90s quit trying to bull shit if you know the difference between how we measure temperture today compared to even the 1960s

 

[cnm]

it's a myth on the consensus,

Most of the prestigious American scientific associations disagree with you. But what would they know, amIright?

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society

U.S. National Academy of Sciences​

 

[Liminal]

I wonder why deniers have to lie about everything all the time?
Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence IPCC Report

 

[cnm]

Well otherwise they'd have to stop denying. I thought everyone knew that.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

I'd bury my head and ass in the sand before I decide on issues depending on WHO is on a particular side. What if we decided justice that same way? (( and I WOULD like an answer on that one))

Science issues are decided by how many are on a particular side, not who, a consensus. Justice is decided the same way, a jury or a panel. HTH.

We would LIKE justice to work that way. But unfortunately "authority" figures like a crooked coroner or a desperate D.A can arrange to infect the jury with flawed evidence.

And in science, it's not voting that determines truth, it's debate and ability to defend your hypotheses against qualified challenges. If there is a sense that there ARE NO qualified challenges, it stops becoming science. But the media/politicians/Pope are complicit in serving that impression.. And the vast sums of money tagged for "MAN-MADE" Climate Change (not good generic Climate Studies") also gives the false impression of "consensus". AND stifles workers in the field from attempting debate and dissent.