Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[IsaacNewton]

The argument of a flat Earth was settled centuries ago, yet there is a Flat Earth society today that has PH.D's among its members. This is who Global Warming deniers are, they are the modern day flat earthers, except their claims are purely for financial gain at the expenxe of humanity.

Ignore the deniers and get real information from scientists at your local University.

 

[flacaltenn]

In other words, no real reply at all. Talking to the professors of science at the university that I attend, I have yet to hear one state that AGW is not real.

How real do they think it is? Are they 2 or 8 degree-ers by 2100? What percentage of the warming from 1800 do they attribute to man. Or arent you allowed to ask those questions at your consensus school? Maybe you should transfer to Georgia Tech. Because I am certain that judith curry would answer them...

 

[Liminal]

In other words, no real reply at all. Talking to the professors of science at the university that I attend, I have yet to hear one state that AGW is not real.

How real do they think it is? Are they 2 or 8 degree-ers by 2100? What percentage of the warming from 1800 do they attribute to man. Or arent you allowed to ask those questions at your consensus school? Maybe you should transfer to Georgia Tech. Because I am certain that judith curry would answer them...

I'd say you're allowed to ask all the out of context questions taken in isolation that you want.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ignore these people that deny Global Warming. Their agenda is one that works against the best interest of the human race. They aren't interested in fact, they are interested in mud. Muddying the waters to make it appear there is 'a debate'.

There is no debate. The debate on whether Global Warming is real ended in the scientific community 15 years ago.

In the 15 years since then the fossil fuel industry and others have poured a billion dollars into a massive disinformation campaign to present the false 'well there's a debate' lie.

There is no debate.

Ignore the deniers and go talk to someone at your local University. Global Warming is rather easy to explain and once explained you will understand just how low these people are that are acting against humanity's best interests for money.

How many times do you "there is no debate" will be required before you start to turn blue?

 

[cnm]

And in science, it's not voting that determines truth, it's debate and ability to defend your hypotheses against qualified challenges.

And when sufficient scientists determine there are no qualified challenges a consensus is formed. I don't know why you're even bothering to argue this. Serves some ideology I guess.

 

[cnm]

Membership of those societies were never polled about the content or conclusions of those statement. Was never submitted for debate for the most part. The front office wrote those statements.

The Australia Geophysical Society DID put it up to the membership when they last wanted to revise "their statement". It was wrapped in such turmoil and debate that they abandoned the update..

I'll wager the same would happen if those statements actually represented the general membership..

Ignore your scientific associations all you want. You won't ignore them about anything else. Flat earther deniers are no skin off my nose.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[cnm]

In Australia the coal industry is very important. Likewise the petroleum engineers/geologists are/were holdouts in the US. It's no surprise those involved with fossil fuels are wary of information that may impact their livelihood.

If you think they have less of an agenda than some scientists in a university some where let me tell you about this bridge I have.

 

[cnm]

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

What's the difference?

Fucking hell.

Scientific theories such as the theories of gravity, evolution, AGW are the current best explanations of the available evidence.

If different/more/contradictory evidence appears that requires a different explanation then that different theory will become the best explanation after it achieves consensus, until more evidence comes along that requires it to be changed again.

So it stands to reason that scientific theories are not 'proven', otherwise they couldn't be changed to fit available evidence.

Again, they are by scientific consensus the best explanations for the available evidence.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In Australia the coal industry is very important. Likewise the petroleum engineers/geologists are/were holdouts in the US. It's no surprise those involved with fossil fuels are wary of information that may impact their livelihood.

If you think they have less of an agenda than some scientists in a university some where let me tell you about this bridge I have.

News Flash Australia got rid of it's carbon tax, that should tell you something.

 

[cnm]

Absolutely. It has a rightard as Prime Minister who dismisses global warming because selling coal to China and using it to generate electricity domestically is too important to the Australian economy.

 

[cnm]

Note the rightard Canadian Prime Minister dismisses it because of the Alberta deposits. Same as Saudi with its FF deposits.

That ought to tell you something when people are on the same side as Saudi in a scientific debate against everyone else.

 

[Liminal]

In Australia the coal industry is very important. Likewise the petroleum engineers/geologists are/were holdouts in the US. It's no surprise those involved with fossil fuels are wary of information that may impact their livelihood.

If you think they have less of an agenda than some scientists in a university some where let me tell you about this bridge I have.

News Flash Australia got rid of it's carbon tax, that should tell you something.

Feel free to tell everyone what that something is. I'm on the edge of my seat with anticipation.

 

[flacaltenn]

Membership of those societies were never polled about the content or conclusions of those statement. Was never submitted for debate for the most part. The front office wrote those statements.

The Australia Geophysical Society DID put it up to the membership when they last wanted to revise "their statement". It was wrapped in such turmoil and debate that they abandoned the update..

I'll wager the same would happen if those statements actually represented the general membership..

Ignore your scientific associations all you want. You won't ignore them about anything else. Flat earther deniers are no skin off my nose.

Say CNM --- Since the science is settled -- Can you find me the latest projection for the Mean Annual Surface Temperature Anomaly for 2050? Need a number accurate enough to plan defenses against Climate Change.

Something as simple as that ought to be simple to find if there is no more science to be done..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Star children on the black road to salvation;
You've got to care for the needs of your planet;
Children of the forest and child of the Woodstock nation

 

[flacaltenn]

Absolutely. It has a rightard as Prime Minister who dismisses global warming because selling coal to China and using it to generate electricity domestically is too important to the Australian economy.

For a poster who is sure this is all about science -- you seem overly zealous to discuss the socio-economic-political aspects of the AGWarming campaign.. That's what it's REALLY about --- is it not?

That's why there is a campaign to confuse pollution with AGWarming and confuse carbon with carbon dioxide.. Not very rigid is it? But it works for people who can't or won't LEARN anything about the science debate.. Fact is -- folks are being "confused" on purpose..

Is something that exists in your lungs at concentrations 3 to 5 times greater than in clean air --- a pollutant??

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

On one side we have

NASA
UK Meteorological Hadley Center Climate Research Unit
NOAA National Climate Center
Japanese Meteorological Agency
The Pope
Leaders of other Large Religious Organization
The Pentagon

All agreeing that Global Climate change is real

On the other side
Kock brothers
Rush Limbaugh
some dude named "flacaltenn'

Gee tough choice

 

[Liminal]

Absolutely. It has a rightard as Prime Minister who dismisses global warming because selling coal to China and using it to generate electricity domestically is too important to the Australian economy.

For a poster who is sure this is all about science -- you seem overly zealous to discuss the socio-economic-political aspects of the AGWarming campaign.. That's what it's REALLY about --- is it not?

That's why there is a campaign to confuse pollution with AGWarming and confuse carbon with carbon dioxide.. Not very rigid is it? But it works for people who can't or won't LEARN anything about the science debate.. Fact is -- folks are being "confused" on purpose..

Is something that exists in your lungs at concentrations 3 to 5 times greater than in clean air --- a pollutant??

Is it the word "pollutant" that has you confused? How about if we change that to " too much shit in the atmosphere to sustain life on Earth."
Would that work better for you?

 

[flacaltenn]

Absolutely. It has a rightard as Prime Minister who dismisses global warming because selling coal to China and using it to generate electricity domestically is too important to the Australian economy.

For a poster who is sure this is all about science -- you seem overly zealous to discuss the socio-economic-political aspects of the AGWarming campaign.. That's what it's REALLY about --- is it not?

That's why there is a campaign to confuse pollution with AGWarming and confuse carbon with carbon dioxide.. Not very rigid is it? But it works for people who can't or won't LEARN anything about the science debate.. Fact is -- folks are being "confused" on purpose..

Is something that exists in your lungs at concentrations 3 to 5 times greater than in clean air --- a pollutant??

Is it the word "pollutant" that has you confused? How about if we change that to " too much shit in the atmosphere to sustain life on Earth."
Would that work better for you?

That's a bit too scientific and specific for me..
And it's deceptive to enroll the public in that campaign of misinformation to make the "ends justify the means"..

 

[flacaltenn]

On one side we have

NASA
UK Meteorological Hadley Center Climate Research Unit
NOAA National Climate Center
Japanese Meteorological Agency
The Pope
Leaders of other Large Religious Organization
The Pentagon

All agreeing that Global Climate change is real

On the other side
Kock brothers
Rush Limbaugh
some dude named "flacaltenn'

Gee tough choice

So you think 0.65degC since 1880 is cause to panic? Can't find anything like that in the entire history of the earth? How about (in your own words) you tell me exactly what all those people said about the temperature anomaly projected for 2050.. And at what date they predicted that.

Because the reason we're here and you are calling me names is that there's been a LOT of panicked projections of 6 or 8 degrees by 2100 that ALREADY are failing to track just 15 yrs after those predictions were made.

Does the Pope care about what the projected magnitude of the warming is? I doubt it.
He apparently doesn't understand the difference between pollution and CO2 ---- OR --- God forbid --- he DOES and he's telling little white lies for your own good..