Climate Change Deniers Are Lying

[Bugler]

Google is a left wing funded agency of the US government. Googel has been manipulating their systems for years deleting links to science that is troublesome for the liars..

Another EPIC FAIL by the Natural Climate deniers...

What? You two got your ass handed to you in the last lie thread you needed to try lying again?

Nice try. Google was created by two very young graduate students at Stanford University. I was online the first day it went online.

Scary government agents controlling your searches.​

 

[IanC]

As someone who has read the pros and cons about both sides of the issue, I find I agree with flac's generally lukewarmer attitude. If people contrasted the sane AGW-lite version of climate science with the catastrophic version of the warmers, I think many others would also agree. Unfortunately it has become an us vs them situation where most argue against straw man versions of what the other is saying.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Does the Pope care about what the projected magnitude of the warming is? I doubt it.

Only you have the intellect the integrity and the knowledge base to know the truth and if anyone doubts it all they have to do is ask you...........

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Google is a left wing funded agency of the US government. Googel has been manipulating their systems for years deleting links to science that is troublesome for the liars..

Another EPIC FAIL by the Natural Climate deniers...

What? You two got your ass handed to you in the last lie thread you needed to try lying again?

Nice try. Google was created by two very young graduate students at Stanford University. I was online the first day it went online.

Scary government agents controlling your searches.​

Google meets with Obama White House on a weekly basis

 

[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?

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"..

What description would meet with your approval and satisfy the conditions of your exacting standards of specificity?

 

[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"..

What description would meet with your approval and satisfy the conditions of your exacting standards of specificity?

What I'd like is ALMOST what you would like -- I'll wagerr.

I'd like to drop this farce of blaming 0.5deg of Global Warming for EVERY environmental issue that we face. Seriously, the warmers have stretched this meme so thin, no one is buying...

And I'd like to go after REAL CARBON POLLUTION, just like we used to without all the lying and deception. I'd like to clean up the miles wide garbage pits in the ocean and work for conservation.

But this AGW farce just SUCKS THE AIR out of every other enviro issue...

 

[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?

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"..

What description would meet with your approval and satisfy the conditions of your exacting standards of specificity?

What I'd like is ALMOST what you would like -- I'll wagerr.

I'd like to drop this farce of blaming 0.5deg of Global Warming for EVERY environmental issue that we face. Seriously, the warmers have stretched this meme so thin, no one is buying...

And I'd like to go after REAL CARBON POLLUTION, just like we used to without all the lying and deception. I'd like to clean up the miles wide garbage pits in the ocean and work for conservation.

But this AGW farce just SUCKS THE AIR out of every other enviro issue...

That may be your personal view, however the denier narrative seems to attract all kinds of anti environmentalist elements, as well as an odd assortment of conspiracy theorists. The actual scientists who support the denier view all seem to be directly or indirectly connected with energy corporations. Not a very honest or honorable group of people.

 

[flacaltenn]

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"..

What description would meet with your approval and satisfy the conditions of your exacting standards of specificity?

What I'd like is ALMOST what you would like -- I'll wagerr.

I'd like to drop this farce of blaming 0.5deg of Global Warming for EVERY environmental issue that we face. Seriously, the warmers have stretched this meme so thin, no one is buying...

And I'd like to go after REAL CARBON POLLUTION, just like we used to without all the lying and deception. I'd like to clean up the miles wide garbage pits in the ocean and work for conservation.

But this AGW farce just SUCKS THE AIR out of every other enviro issue...

That may be your personal view, however the denier narrative seems to attract all kinds of anti environmentalist elements, as well as an odd assortment of conspiracy theorists. The actual scientists who support the denier view all seem to be directly or indirectly connected with energy corporations. Not a very honest or honorable group of people.

You'd be better off not marginalizing scientific dissent and debate with the easy ruse of they all work for energy corporations.

I've spent PAGES on USMB facing some radical "deniers" down when they are wrong on the science.

So --- when are you gonna OFFER PROOF of your Opening Post here? That "deniers are liars"?? Or are you done with that? Did you EVER offer examples?

 

[flacaltenn]

All they have left. Reality is kicking in their teeth. The El Nino this year is going to demonstrate just how stupid the deniars are.

How does a natural re-occurring event kick in ANYONE'S teeth?

Statement makes no sense..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Boy, scientists are the ones telling us that, among scientists, there is no longer any debate. That is not the same as saying "that science is over".

Billy, do you think the science is settled on gross human anatomy? How about heat transfer? Fluid dynamics? The physical characteristics of the Solar System? The Carnot Cycle? Plant transpiration? The diet of chimpanzees? Animal husbandry? Is there any topic of the natural sciences that you'd agree lacks significant debate among the cognoscenti? I have to assume the answer to that question is "yes". So... please explain why, with a 97% consensus, you think any significant debate still exists regarding AGW.

Your so full of shit its coming out your mouth... Your 97% is a lie as is your so called consensus..

There is significant debate needed because you all haven't even scratched the surface of real science.. Until you remove your political blinders you will continue destroying science.. The alarmists and their enablers are truly as anti-science as it gets.. Your side of liars has controlled journals so that only your agenda is heard killing the real science. Killed Colleges from teaching cognitive thinking skills and indoctrinated those who attend with your agenda.

The IPCC and the CAGW agenda are killing both people and science...

 

[cnm]

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..

What science is settled? Global cooling?

 

[cnm]

If people contrasted the sane AGW-lite version of climate science with the catastrophic version of the warmers, I think many others would also agree.

Which climate scientists are 'catastrophic warmers'?

 

[cnm]

Your side of liars has controlled journals so that only your agenda is heard killing the real science.

The vast world wide conspiracy. One has to admire the scope and range of it to take in every government apart from a few, not to mention every US government agency.

Could only be done by some dude stroking a white cat and living on an island shaped like a skull.

 

[cnm]

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 is absolutely what the opposition to the scientific consensus is all about.

 

[cnm]

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..

First I've heard of it. Which climate scientists are doing that?

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

What science is settled? Global cooling?

I figured you were bashing climate skeptics because "the science is settled". If you are so certain there is no point to further debate, skepticism or even Heaven forbid more sweaty studies, you could tell me what the science says about the temperature in 2050..

Don't you need some certainty on that before we go trying to engineer solutions?

And help me out here.. Exactly WHAT are climate skeptics "lying about" as this thread implies?

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

First I've heard of it. Which climate scientists are doing that?

Obviously a lot of scientists at the EPA don't know the diff. Don't think the Vatican scientists know the difference. And even the cult leadership at UN IPCC are now confused about the difference between REAL pollution and CO2.

 

[flacaltenn]

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 is absolutely what the opposition to the scientific consensus is all about.

Not really. You confuse the rejection of your leftists plans for "alternative energy" as some kind of conspiracy. It's not. The shit just aint an alternative. I can reel off a whole bunch of prominent scientist skeptics that just make sense. That DESTROY some of the weaker AGW claims that have everyone's panties in wad.

I am anti-socialist.. But it's got nothing to do with the analysis of who is right and who is wrong. In science, that's pretty much all that matters. You can bitch about who fund it. But if it can't stand up to scrutiny -- you wasted your bucks..

 

[cnm]

The 'settled science' is the consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change.

 

[cnm]

Not really.

Yes really. I've seen no 'leftist plans' from climate scientists. 'Leftist plans' are the delusions of deniers.